Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Metroid Prime: Federation Force

Another example of user-based negative reception; a petition to cancel the game was started and the fanbase's reaction resulted in it flopping commercially. Any thoughts? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's reception is considered "mixed" by its article's depiction, and Metacritic, which gives it a 64/100 rating. I'm not sure how much significance I'd give to an online petition either - fans make those things at the drop of a hat, often for irrational reasons. I'm against it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So is No Man's Sky's reception, though, and this is a similar case to that - many of its reviews were no so kind, either (EGM gave it a 3.5), and one of its trailers got a 2:1 dislike ratio (last recorded as 1,374 to 600 before Nintendo disabled it). I'd say it could be added, but we'd need to draft something up here first. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that situations like NMS and MN9 were going to be relatively rare occurrences though. I just don't put much stock in these sorts of metrics unless they're a huge deal. Randos on the internet frequently spam bad user reviews or "thumbs down" content on stuff that doesn't meet their petty tastes. I don't see it commonly being enough to make a game "one of the most negatively received games ever", which is what we're documenting here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we do need a bit of discrimination here , specifically on the word "notable". M:FF seems like a meh title that had little media push behind it, and it didn't pan out players wanted it to be, so it really isn't "notable" for anything negative, just a hoo-hum title. Contrast this to the few cases presented: NMS, MN9, and SimCity, these were all big titles and got mediocre reviews and significant user backlash that was more than just review-bombing complaints. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No Mans Sky?

Is No Mans Sky really that bad of a game, its average at best but certainly not the worst ever. -- Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

See here, here, here, here. Lordtobi (✉) 15:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did not they put Rambo: The Video Game listed here?

I do not know for you, but when you talk about games with a bad reception, the first one that I remember is Rambo. Just look at the reviews and criticisms he received, had even list that put him as the worst game of the decade. Another one that would fit in this list is Alone in the Dark Illumination, now as to No Man's Sky, you can keep him on the list yes, because everyone hated it kkkkk 14:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F0:A091:3CAE:4CB1:E1C2:56B5:BDDD (talk)

Keep in mind that movie-tie in games are generally not considered since they are presumed shovelware, which seems to be the case for the Rambo game. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Yes, But there were no Rambo movies released in 2014." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.160.220.210 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, but the point is, often with the cheap licensed games based off of movies, TV shows, books, etc - they're never expected to be any good, and as such, they're not really seen as notably negative in their reception. They're very routinely negative. The reaction to Rambo really wasn't all that noteworthy - what reviewers/players had big expectations, in this decade, that Rambo was going to be this blockbuster, amazing game? Besides, if we just added every game that went straight to the bargain bin, this list would be overwhelming and overflowing with every single Spongebob Go Karting Adventure and Garfield Lasagna Eating Simulator nonsense game ever created. It's not really what we're trying to document here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is Diablo 3?

Diablo 3 was one of the most disappointing games with 20 years of waiting and failed attempts at an auction house, in game crashes, log in errors, and manditory online only connectivity for what is largely a single player game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.163.73 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It certainly had criticisms but I don't think it would pass the criteria at the top of the page. -- ferret (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about the same Diablo 3 that has an 88 on Metacritic based on 86 reviews? It's stats show only one negative professional critic review. That's going to be a hard sell for this list. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Night Trap

The main page for Night Trap gives the year of release as 1992 so what reason is 1993 given on this page? Workster 18:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workster (talk • contribs)

Its first release was 1992 or 1993, depending on the region. It's been fixed to 1992 here, and that's what it should be, since that's the true first year of release, but I imagine someone just mistakenly thought 1993 was the first year everywhere. (It's not too far off - it's just 1 year, and it came out pretty late in 1992 too.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that was my mistake. Sorry. JOEBRO64 21:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214143119/http://www.uproxx.com/feature/2010/07/plumbers-dont-wear-ties-gamings-first-and-only-surrealist-softcore-adventure/ to http://www.uproxx.com/feature/2010/07/plumbers-dont-wear-ties-gamings-first-and-only-surrealist-softcore-adventure/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511020701/http://au.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/bestof_2001/p4_02.html to http://au.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/bestof_2001/p4_02.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609092600/http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/driving/bigrigsotrr/download_6086554.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/driving/bigrigsotrr/download_6086554.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://au.gamespot.com/sonic-the-hedgehog-2006/reviews/sonic-the-hedgehog-review-6162205/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622092256/http://uk.gamespot.com/rogue-warrior/reviews/rogue-warrior-review-6241882/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/rogue-warrior/reviews/rogue-warrior-review-6241882/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018041648/http://www.1up.com/reviews/mindjack-review?pager.offset=0 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/mindjack-review?pager.offset=0
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140919015318/http://www.gamingxp.com/bericht-5448-namco_bandai-namco-psvita-ridge_racer.htm to http://www.gamingxp.com/bericht-5448-namco_bandai-namco-psvita-ridge_racer.htm

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) 00:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of sitcoms known for negative reception which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass Effect: Andromeda??

I was just about to ask if someone or myself could put Mass Effect: Andromeda on the list.--Little Bizarre Dio (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

We have discussed before, and it's on an iffy side. The game did not get as bad reviews based on MetaCritic/others, but we're aware of the issues by players. But when you compare it to something like No Man's Sky, it's "negative reception" seems lacking. The best way to proceed woudl be to develop the text that you'd include , but on this talk page as a draft, to see to how to proceed with it. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Slaughtering Grounds

Per this edit, this might be one to talk for inclusion.

It was never really controversial as a game, I can't see how it would over at that list. It clearly didn't get much review coverage from major sources, but the fact that Jim Sterling and a number of steam users put negative ratings towards it, leading to the lawsuit and subsequent removal of the games (something well covered in RSes) is why that game is notable. I wouldn't use the diff above as is, but there is something to the applicability of that game on this list. --Masem (t) 16:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion - This is really more of a "Jim Sterling controversy" than a "notably negatively received video game". I mean, conceptually, it all happened because Sterling's commentary was particularly negative. If it was widely negative, they probably wouldn't have had such an issue with Sterling's review. It also fails most of the inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

CRAZYBUS and Desert Bus

Why not add CRAZYBUS and Desert Bus? They are both considered to be atrocities by pretty much everyone on the internet.Kbimbatti22 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a possible case for this. everyone knows it was intentionally bad, but its built a reputation for charitable efforts because of that badness. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

To add that this New Yorker article is definitely a positive place to start to include. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about video games notable for negative reception. Crazybus is actually a tech demo, not an actual game. Then Desert Bus is just one portion of a larger "game". ViperSnake151  Talk  15:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

And unless there's some sort of spelling or stylization I'm not aware of, neither seem to have their own article? Which would mean both are an auto-fail as far as the inclusion criteria goes anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamefront.com/the-convoluted-blood-spattered-history-of-mortal-kombat-infographic/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202054927/http://www.gamesradar.com/worst-games-all-time/6/ to http://www.gamesradar.com/worst-games-all-time/6/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090921152320/http://www.paradoxplaza.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=504&Itemid=130 to http://www.paradoxplaza.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=504&Itemid=130

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) 08:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival

Here's one to consider. Metacritic calculates 46/100 ("generally unfavorable"), many reviews had the words "terrible", "boring", and comments on its lack of content, and Polygon named it one of the worst games of 2015. It's not absolutely the worst, but it was heavily advertised and in a beloved gaming franchise (similar to Sonic '06 or SimCity). Thoughts? JOEBRO64 00:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It's possible, though I don't see a lot of the regular RSes we use for reviews at the MC. But it technically is a first-party Nintendo game, and that's unusual for that to get a negative reception. --Masem (t) 00:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm kind of in the same boat. I guess it would depend on the sourcing and proposed prose. Games like Sonic 06 are panned over and over again in retrospectives/worst games lists/industry and franchise blunders etc. In my reading about Amiibo Festival, it strikes me as more of a Sonic Shuffle situation - a botched attempt at a party game spinoff, not a major franchise blunder. Because it was a minor side game, and not a major iteration, it doesn't seem like the industry reacted as negatively. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a start:

Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival is a party game in the Animal Crossing series, developed and published by Nintendo for the Wii U. While similar to the Mario Party series of party games, it has less of an emphasis on minigames and a large focus on board game-style gameplay, and requires Amiibo figurines.

The game was released to a mostly negative reception, with Metacritic assigning it a weighted average of 46/100; it was one of the lowest-rated Wii U titles released that year. Writing for IGN, Kallie Plagge claimed to have fallen asleep while playing the game. She derided its gameplay as slow, shallow, and felt it lacked variety, and said its integration of Amiibo was cumbersome and complicated. David Jenkins of Metro derided the title as "a new low for Nintendo and Animal Crossing", saying "there is almost no gameplay whatsoever" and compared it to "a CIA mind experiment gone wrong". Jenkins also wrote that the game's quality could possibly damage Nintendo's reputation as a "terrible schedule filler". Willie Clark of VentureBeat slammed the game as a blatant attempt by Nintendo to sell Amiibos, and told readers that it was not worth its $60 price tag. Clark also called it one of the worst Nintendo-produced titles she had ever played.

Polygon's Allegra Frank would go on to name the game one of the worst of 2015. Frank wrote that, while 2013's Animal Crossing: New Leaf was "embraced by longtime players and newcomers for offering innovation instead of just iteration", Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival, and its Nintendo 3DS counterpart Happy Home Designer, simply existed to cash in on the launch of the Amiibo toy line. He said that Amiibo Festival played as a "dashed-off" Mario Party clone and that it was an obvious attempt to sell the toys. He felt that, while not the worst game of the year, the game represented a major disappointment for Animal Crossing fans and was a missed opportunity.

References

It's not perfect (this is still only a draft) and could probably use some more commentary from other RSes that gave it poor reviews, like NWR and Nintendo Life. However, given this "worst Nintendo"/"worst of 2015" commentary, I'd say it's got a good shot at inclusion. JOEBRO64 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524184801/http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/saturn/the_crow_city_of to http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/saturn/the_crow_city_of
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170914172249/http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8642-Top-5-Games-of-2013 to http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8642-Top-5-Games-of-2013/

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) 19:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of video games notable for negative reception

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of video games notable for negative reception's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NP":

• From Nintendo Power: Nintendo Power: "His handle is Lark, but everyone in class knows this guy is Nester." Nintendo Power. Nintendo of America. September 1996, page 25.
• From Daikatana: "Daikatana (N64)". Nintendo Power. 130. March 2000.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

To put on the watch list: SW Battlefront II

While there was already the issue of loot boxes, the current controversy over unlocking of heroes, which has created a large amount of outrage [1] (and noted by mainstream), may start leading this into inclusion here. Obviously, waiting until the full game is out, we can see what the critics say (if they agree the monetization kills the game) and go from there, but this has signs of being on this list. Irregardless, I've already listed it at "Controversial" due to both issues. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

We'd need to wait several months likely to make a call, based on our current criteria. I don't see the game getting <50% reviews even with the issues. -- ferret (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

[2] The reaction to the game is putting concern on EA's stock. Yes, I agree we need to wait at least a month at minimum here but there are data points trending towards inclusion. I do note that only a few of the "big" sites have put their reviews in, so while MC is around 75 from the smaller non-RS sources, it could still move down, but there's definitely user backlash here (presently at "cotroversies") to be aware of. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And just like that EA's stock lost $3B, atttributed to reactions to Battlefront II. I realize this still seems to fall more as controversy, but this all seems to qualify as negative reactions. Still would wait a bit. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Still holding off, but The Intercept noted it had a 0.8/10 user rating on MC over the loot box issue. --Masem (t) 15:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

[3] Another CNBC bit, key quote "The negative player reaction to the mishandled loot box economy has clearly impacted SWBF2 sales … we think this is evidence that the industry's core gamer constituency is getting increasingly unhappy about the degree to which MTX is being shoehorned into core gameplay loops." I'd like to wait to see a hard number related to financial impact on EA with their next quarterlies (or if Disney does anything to the SW license from EA, but haven't seen anything like that) but I'm at a point where this does fit "notable to negative reception". --Masem (t) 19:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Confident criteria 3 will be met. Criteria 4 is a little weak, as no one has really given a bad reception from a quality point of view. Just a matter now to see what overall impact comes out of it. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Battlefront II missed revenue marks with EA blaming the loot box situation over. [4]. I think this is at least sufficient now to include here, in addition to the various legal steps being explored now lit off by the game. --Masem (t) 23:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that we can put BFII on this list from just the above (but I want to provide a para for review before putting it up), but if this rumor is true, that Disney is looking to pull EA's Star Wars license due to the reaction to BFII, that would seal the deal. [5]. But as I said that's a rumor, can't even consider using for a source. --Masem (t) 14:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Far as I'm concerned I think you can go ahead and draft and add it. The rumor above has basically existed since before release though. The one time the Cinelinx guy provides any sources, it's tied back to 11/17 sources we already have. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposing the following:

Star Wars Battlefront II, primarily an online multiplayer shooter, was developed by EA DICE as a sequel to the 2015 game. One element that EA had sought to change was how microtransactions would be handled; the first game offered additional characters and settings through downloadable content, but EA found this segmented the player community between those that had purchased the additional content and those that hadn't. Instead, EA opted to use loot box mechanics (called Star Crates in game); players could earn Star Crates, containing a random collection of in-game items distributed by rarity, over time by playing the game, but could also spend real-world funds to acquire these. While such loot crates were an established mechanism in video games, the approach used by Battlefield II during its pre-launch beta peroid was found to be problematic to players. First, the items were not strictly cosmetic items (like character skins) but included buffs and other in-game advantages. Thus, players could advance farther in the game by buying Star Crates immediately, making it a "pay to win" game. Second, while the game offered the ability to purchase established Star Wars characters like Darth Vader through in-game credits (found in Star Crates or by other means, or otherwise purchased with real-world funds), the rate at which players could earn such credits without spending additional money was considered far too slow, with estimates of requiring 40 hours of play to just unlock one of these characters. Coupled with the tiered-distribution of items from Star Crates, many journalists and players expressed concern over how the game was treating consumers due to these loot box mechanics; other games released in 2017 had raised similar issues, but Battlefront II became a large focus due to the highly-visible nature of the Star Wars branding.

EA made a number of revisions to the Star Crate approach prior to launch, such as by reducing the cost of the special characters by 75%, but a large portion of the players still were critical of the overall "pay to win" nature. Just prior to the game's planned launch in November 2017, Disney (who owned the rights to Star Wars) contacted EA over the situation, leading to EA to disable any of the microtransaction processes indefinitely until they could work out a solution. While the game was not poorly received by game reviewers, the negative perception of the game by the player base troubled EA's stockholders, and within a week, EA's stock market value dropped by US$3 billion, attributed to the Battlefront II loot box controversy. In its Q4 2017 quarterly financials, EA stated that Battlefront II had missed their sales expectation by at least 10%, which EA's CEO Blake Jorgensen attributed to the player base reaction to how EA had implemented and handled the loot box issue. As of February 2018, EA still has not reimplemented the microtransactions in the game, but have stated they do plan to bring it back once they have refined the system. The reaction to Battlefront II's loot crates also led to a number of worldwide government responses in late 2017 and early 2018 to evaluate whether loot box mechanics in video games were a form of gambling, and thus would require them to regulate their sale within their countries, particularly to minors.

(Everything can be sourced between links above, the game article, and the loot box article). --Masem (t) 15:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Super Monkey Ball Adventure

Super Monkey Ball Adventure is a video game developed by Traveller's Tales in association with the division Traveller's Tales Oxford and distributed by Sega in the Super Monkey Ball series, released on June 30, 2006.

Super Monkey Ball Adventure is a departure from the series in the sense that the puzzle-based gameplay is replaced by a more traditional 3D platform game world. Traveller's Tales has retained some of the mini-games, however, and integrated the features into the gameplay. Some new mini-games are also integrated into the adventure world.

Super Monkey Ball Adventure received negative reviews from critics. This was due to the confusion of goals (the significant difference compared to the other Super Monkey Ball games), the lack of character control (causing a lot of falls, especially in water), repetitive and long loading screens, sound glitches, and other various game glitches and crashes. Super Monkey Ball Adventure obtained a rare ranking of zero percent on Rotten Tomatoes' video game section. Nintendo Power gave the game a 5.5 out of 10 rating and it, along with many other sources, claimed it was the worst installment thus far in the Super Monkey Ball series. X-Play gave it a 1 out of 5. IGN gave the game a "Bad" rating at 4.8 out of 10, stating that "We just want to play the damned puzzle mazes." The game's soundtrack, however, was highly praised.

References

This is just copy-and-paste from the main Super Monkey Ball Adventure article; you need to make a case for why its reception was notably negative. JOEBRO64 20:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As well as properly source it. At a quick glance, it fails the first criteria. MC is over 50 (if just barely). -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

hrere, i found a the review from ign:

References

Jurassic Park: Trespasser

Trespasser (video game)

It got a 57% on GR, so it doesn't immediately fall within the top criteria, but there are some 1-2/10 type scores from RSes. More importantly, its established as a "industry pariah" as it was a big budget game, meant to be a video sequel to the Lost World (eg: not shovelware) but overpromised on trying to incorporate a lot of physics in the game, missed a key deadline, and what did end up getting shipped was lacking. Notably it was one of the first games that tried to do [6] [7] [8] [9], and more. --Masem (t) 13:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Whole generation of 16-bit home computer games is missing

There are no bad Amiga/Atari/XT and 286 games listed.

Amiga list (mostly playability):

Rolling Ronny, Dark Castle, Belial, Desert Racing of Bardos , Moonwalker , Cisco Heat, Microprose Soccer , Akira , Gazza's Super Soccer , Rise of the Robots , Days of Thunder , Outrun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.198.19 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Key is to have sources to support this. Amiga and other home computer games didn't get many hard "ratings" and certainly arent documented well at GameRankings, so we need sources to confirm this. --Masem (t) 20:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Action 52

I've seen this game on a lot of worst games lists but wanted to discuss here before I added it to see if there's any objections to its inclusion. For those who don't know, Action 52 was an unlicensed NES/Genesis game that had 52 minigames on it. Common criticisms were of all the minigames being extremely poor quality (glitches, graphics, controls, etc.) and the game costing around $200 (this is why we don't pirate things, kids). HG101 and Atari HQ both reference it as one of the worst games ever, and Retro Gamer called it an "infamous catastrophe". Thoughts? JOEBRO64 12:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been discussed a number of times before, the issue seems to be lack of sources. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just added a new, well-sourced section about Action 52 to the article. While it may need some improvements, I think it should stay on the list. JOEBRO64 14:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

New Gundam Breaker

It seems that the latest installment of the Gundam Breaker series had received a whole lot of negative reception from fans on the PS4 version since it's release (Because of the slightly stripped gaming mechanics & the FPS), with a current score of 1 or 2 out of 5 stars: [10] Though there are reports that the patch is going to fix the delayed PC release of the game. [11] Xyuehong (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling that's going to be hard to include. That's a user rating, so we need reliable sources discussing the issue in depth, and as an apparently a Japan-only release, I don't know if it will get that attention. (If it does end up covered widely in Japanese sources, then we can still include). --Masem (t) 13:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

About popular works

That sentence seems really vauge. Do you guys have any criteria for it? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 14:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are talking about this sentence "With some exceptions, the list below omits licensed tie-in games for movies or television shows, which are generally accepted as shovelware by the industry and not expected to have high production values.", the only specific tie-in games included are those that had high-profile bad reception or impact, not because they were popular franchises or games. --Masem (t) 14:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

In an article about games that are exactly that, the sentence in question seems to be an odd addition. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 14:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

We exclude a ton of bad tie-in shovelware games, because while they otherwise meet inclusion criteria such as a low Metacritic score, no one ever expected them to be good and generally coverage was low. See the inclusion criteria at the top of this page, under "Notice - Inclusion Criteria" -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The Crow: City of Angels

I've WP:BOLDLY removed this entry. I see it was discussed on this talk page last year, but as I've done research on The Crow: City of Angels I see only more reasons to think its reception is not notable in any way. The sourcing as it stands is woefully inadequate for the game's placement in the list; the GameRankings score is based on just four reviews. Beyond that, the game appears to be a classic case of the low-quality licensed video games which we generally don't include in this list, as noted in the above thread. Practically every review on the game I read (excluding the ones which weren't negative) opened with some variation of "This is a video game based on a movie, so as you'd expect it's no good." No one seems to have been at all shocked or even interested by the game's low quality when it came out.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness

[12][13][14][15]

This is one that wasn't absolutely panned, but it did basically kill Tomb Raider for a few years (and the entry after was a full reboot that ignored it), Paramount blamed its lackluster reception on the poor performance of The Cradle of Life, and the series had to be picked up by a completely different developer. JOEBRO64 19:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Various games notable for negative reception

I believe I should recommend non-present titles that I believe are necessary for inclusion on this page:

Day One: Garry's Incident (2013). Numerous controversies surrounding broken gameplay, poor design, and developers rating the game themselves on Metacritic, and flagging videos criticizing the game as "copyright infringement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_One:_Garry%27s_Incident

Air Control (2014). An infamous title on Steam, YouTube users criticized it for it's bizarre gameplay, stolen assets, glitches, overall unplayability, and bad controls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Control_(video_game) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.47.117 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Day One would fall under "Controversial" rather than negative (add that it was not a mainstream title, which we generally do not include here anyway). Same issue on Air Control - it's not a mainstream game, so we generally do not include those unless there's strong compelling reasons. --Masem (t) 02:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

pac-man came before e.t.

Pac-Man (christmas 1981) came before E.T. (christmas 1982). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.210.21 (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

dr. jekyll and mr. hyde

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1988)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a is a 1988 side-scrolling action video game for the Nintendo Entertainment System loosely based on the novella Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

The game was the first to be reviewed on the website Something Awful, gaining a score of -37, where -50 is the worst possible score. Brett Alan Weiss of the website AllGame declared that the "music and graphics are tolerable, but the controls are sluggish and the action is exceedingly dull, rendering Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde almost unplayable." IGN ranked the cover art the third scariest cover art in gaming. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, together with Castlevania II: Simon's Quest, were the target of James Rolfe's first two mock reviews as the Angry Video Game Nerd. The joke relied upon the distress caused to an obsessive gamer by titles that were more than twenty years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.210.21 (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Putting Fallout 76 on the potential list

I would give it at least a week but right now with MC scores floating around 50 (vary by system) and clear user dissatisifcation, there's something to be said here. But still, the game just came out, I'd give it time to be patched and see if that quells problems. Wouldn't add it right now. --Masem (t) 23:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

EG US Gamer on its current poor reception. --Masem (t) 23:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

More from Kotaku [16]. --Masem (t) 23:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

and another [17]. --Masem (t) 02:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree about putting it on the list; having ~50 on metacritic for a AAA release is almost unheard of these days AM Woody (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty much destined to go on the list at this point. Once Masem writes it, I'll probably steal it as a base for fixing the terribly written reception section at the game's article. -- ferret (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, its no longer a question of whether this belongs, but just waiting for two current actions (the potential class-action lawsuit that a law firm is openly discussing and the collector's edition mess) to have a better sense how to write it. --Masem (t) 15:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The Quiet Man and The Culling 2

Should the game The Quiet Man go on this page by any chance?

https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/06/the-quiet-man-review-fascinatingly-awful-8108705/
https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/11/06/the-quiet-man-review
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-quiet-man-review-silent-but-not-golden/1900-6417030 /
https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/the-quiet-man
https://www.destructoid.com/review-the-quiet-man-529528.phtml
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-quiet-man-is-spectacularly-bad/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za-xonuBlek
http://www.ladbible.com/technology/gaming-the-quiet-man-could-be-the-worst-reviewed-game-of-2018-20181107
https://www.geek.com/games/the-quiet-man-is-the-most-disappointing-game-of-2018-1760581/

Lacon432 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably. MC scores are low enough to meet the sub-50 metric. --Masem (t) 03:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

And what of The Culling 2? Should that also be on the list? I know it is kinda heady of me, but although Metacritic scores aren’t shown, the game had been taken a dump on by critics as well. https://ign.com/articles/2018/07/14/the-culling-2-review https://store.steampowered.com/app/752720/The_Culling_2/ https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/18/17587088/the-culling-2-launch-takedown-xaviant https://kotaku.com/the-culling-2-tanks-so-hard-that-developers-pull-game-f-1827691214 - Lacon432 (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Fallout 76

I think Fallout 76 should be added as a section on this article due to poor reception and the number of controversies surrounding the game. Matthew Cenance 04:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

See above, it will be. We're just giving time to see how a few thing settle out. --Masem (t) 04:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Mobile games

I added a bit that we should generally reject mobile games on this list due to self publishing, copycats, and premium complaints. Exceptions should be made for major series transitions to mobile e.g. Dungeon Keeper that get significant attention and are panned, and keeping eyes on the mobile Diablo game. --Masem (t) 20:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Lacon432 (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Metal Gear Survive

Out of curiosity, should Metal Gear Survive be on this list? Or does it have too much of a mediocre review consensus for it to count? - Lacon432 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's too far outside. I know that it didn't sell well, and it did get low reviews but not too much below 50%, and compared to fan reactions of other games (like Fallout 76) I don't see much to support it. But that's just doing a cursory check of things. --Masem (t) 00:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Altighty. I'll leave it alone. - Lacon432 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Club Drive

What about Club Drive, that game is hated by a lot of people and is considered one of the worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.156.162 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Read the inclusion criteria at the top of the page and provide reliable sources to back it up. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Club Drive (1994)

Club Drive is a Racing game set in the future when scientists made a park called “Club Drive” where they can test their indestructible cars. This game was published by Atari and was made for the Atari Jaguar. The game was criticized for having terrible graphics, bad soundtrack, repetitive gameplay, and terrible controls. Electric Gaming Monthly’s Seanbaby put it at number 2 on his Crapstravaganza: The 20 Worst Games of All Time. Atari Game Headquarters gave it a 2/10 saying “If you ever dreamed about driving around inside a giant house or even a junkyard, Club Drive is your worst nightmare.”. NerdBacon reviewed this game saying “If your one of those weird geeks who has a Atari Jaguar (don’t feel bad, I’m one) don’t start your collection with Club Drive. In 1996, the games trademark was abandoned. The game was going to have a sequel called Automanicas was going to be made, but was cancelled. In 2018, a video gamer called PeteDorr completed the game in 10:01. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.156.162 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Overkill's The Walking Dead

52 on MC and Starbreeze is being hit with tons of financial problems over this game. I think its a no brainer, but just want a second opinion before adding. --Masem (t) 23:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Order: 1886

Only seeing this pop up in a few recent videos, The Order: 1886 is just above the 50 MC limit but with a few sub 50 scores, but it does have a reputation. However, I'd have to dig more to see how much there really is, so only putting here if anyone is interested if seeing if there's enough to call it a game with a negative reception (disappointing yes, but can't readily confirm negative). --Masem (t) 23:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Mighty No. 9

Would Mighty No. 9 be a good contender for this list? Despite having review scores mainly between 50% and 60%, user scores on Metacritic are far more critical, and the game itself was notorious for being delayed countless times from a little while after its announcement in 2013 to it being finally released in mid 2016. There are even certain notable issues prior to and following the game's release, including numerous Kickstarter goal expansions, players receiving mismatched codes and rewards from Comcept following the game's release, the infamous Masterclass trailer, and the 3DS and Vita versions never being released despite Comcept promising to release them by the end of 2017. ToThAc (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's been discussed before and most editors seem to agree that it meets the criteria, I think it just hasn't been added because people are lazy. I'll try to get to it later this week. JOEBRO64 00:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Trespasser

Does Trespasser have a place on this list? Rather than being flat out panned and turned into an example of "How not to develop games/conduct business" like ET or The Culling 2, it holds nearly a 60% on Game Rankings and was influential towards the development of Half Life 2's physics. It's notable for being the first game to implement Ragdoll Physics as well, and seems to have some kind of fan modding community. LessNumbers (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It was still notable that is was massively panned at the time for several of its "innovations" that would actually become staples in the industry. It's still considered a poor game over, and the implementation of the gameplay elements were dreadful from its rushed development schedule, but those would become significant later. It's not the same type of "negative reception" as you'd get for Big Rigs or the like, where there was nothing deemable, but it is still recognized that it wasn't a good game as released. --Masem (t) 00:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seems like a game that critics and the community have softened to over time, but definitely savaged at launch. It is a very clunky game, the inspiration to Surgeon Simulator and Octodad is apt. LessNumbers (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying that good things did not come out of the game, but those good things were tied to a game that were known as bad. And that's a good point to be had that Surgeon Simulator and other games came out of that (which I can source). --Masem (t) 22:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is Daikatana

I don’t get why Daikatana was removed. It was critically panned, getting low scores, the offensive advertising, and how it was a commercial failure. Some youtubers even claim that it’s one of the worst games they have ever played. Why was it removed? DogBrineLover101 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The removal was here and the edit summary pointed it to being more controversial than a negative reception. --Masem (t) 18:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay DogBrineLover101 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I too am disappointed by the absence of Daikatana. It was a classic (for all the wrong reasons). Of course it was controversial. However it was also poorly received.

Also, what about Anthem? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with Daikatana is that doesn't fit the criteria listed at the top of this talk page. Almost all the negative reception was directed towards its marketing campaign rather than the quality of the game. Reviews were overall mediocre and many felt it did not live up to expectations, but average scores are above the 5/10 cutoff, and AFAIK there wasn't any major player backlash. Anthem is also a hard sell for me for most of the same reasons; its reviews were mediocre at worst, and the player response was nowhere near as bad as Fallout 76 or No Man's Sky. JOEBRO64 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Isle of the Dead (video game)

Been thinking about this for a while. Would Isle of the Dead fit the criteria for this page? GamerPro64 02:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Break the article UP by decades

It's too huge to scroll through it comfortably. I think it's better to move decade based sections into a separate articles. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 14:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

New source

PC Gamer's 22 worst PC games of all time I would not use this alone to add games by this article alone (though I haven't checked if those listed would also qualify by our rules), but certainly this can be used to add to any game already on this list. --Masem (t) 15:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This list is a mess

Without doubt, this list needs to be cleaned up a lot. My concerns involve the fact that there are some entries being listed not particularly because they are subpar, but because they are negatively received due to either obscenity controversies or their developers engaging in unethical practices (anti-consumerism, hostility, sometimes microtransactions, etc.). Entries like Pac-Man (Atari 2600 game) make sense because that game's inferior quality deserves media condemnation and thus a spot on this list, but if we are going to include titles like Star Wars Battlefront II because of loot boxes or obscenities, there ought to be far more such titles to this list. Frankly, there already is a list covering those games, so I cannot be the only one who thinks that inserting those games here to imply their purportedly negative reception is dramatically POV. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 22:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we should be careful of adding games that are only controversial to that other list if they don't generate negative reception. But controversy and negative reception can also happen for the same game. I would argue that SW BFII still has a larger negative impression because of the whole loot box situation, for example. --Masem (t) 22:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible listing of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

Can I please get a consensus on whether it would be appropriate to place Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered on this page? The alternative is to look into having it on the controversial video games page instead. I'm not sure which it would be better suited to, as the context here purely concerns backlash towards Activision's business practices surrounding Remastered. The full details are on its Wikipedia article, but to summarise, these were: initially bundling the remaster with the poorly-received Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare so buyers were forced to pay more to play it; adding microtransactions after release, especially as the original Call of Duty 4 did not have them (with the addition of brand new-content, both cosmetic and non-cosmetic); and selling the remastered downloadable content for a set price rather than making it free, with further criticism for the price of the game's eventual standalone version.

Journalists/fans simply felt Remastered was anti-consumer due to the decisions Activision made over the game's lifespan, some even considering it to being a "cash grab", and also resulted in resentment that they failed to respect the original game and made it into something akin to a modern AAA title. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a review-bomb style controversy than negative reviews. Particularly as it didn't have too much of an impact on Activision unlike SW:BFII for EA. --Masem (t) 18:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

WAY too many 2000s/2010s games here

Well okay, the main issue I have here is that too many of the games on this list are not THAT well known, let alone for being the 'worst games of all time.' Regardless of how poor the quality of many of the games listed on here are, a lot of the ones particularly listed in the latter half of the 2010s are barely even recognized for being 'worst of all time' especially only after a year or two after their release. I can understand some games like sonic boom, battlefront 2, fallout 76, and tony hawk's pro skater 5 being listed on here, since those games got a lot of attention and controversy even after they were released; however games like the quiet man, ghostbusters 2016, agony, alone in the dark illumination, and raven's cry are not very well known and should be removed because they clog up this wikipedia list and lessen the impact a game considered the 'worst ever' really warrants. there are way too many games listed in 2018 in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. gamerwiki (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There are probably fair excess of enteries, as just having a low rating isn't sufficient. But for example: Ghostbusters 2016 killed the studio that made it - that's notable. Quiet Man was this big hyped AAA title that died a fast death, and so on. --Masem (t) 03:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This is why we have such strong criteria, but let me break down what you removed...

• Mortal Kombat Mythologies - Disagree: Bad reviews, named by one source as the worst game in franchise history, studio decided against making sequels because of the bad reception
• South Park - Justified: Not enough detail, licensed game, no specific description of it as being the "worst".
• Carmageddon 64 - Borderline: No specific citation of it as being the "worst" in a genre/etc., but saying it was worse than Superman 64 says something...
• The Simpsons Wrestling - Learning towards justified: Licensed game, no specific citation of it as being the "worst" in a genre/etc., but calling it "the most horrific demolition of a license ever" in your review may the cause.
• The Simpsons Skateboarding - Borderline (disclosure: I think I expanded upon this entry): "a case study in bad game design"? And of course Tony Hawk is the de facto benchmark for all skateboarding games. It's got more justification for inclusion than the wrestling one.
• Batman Dark Tomorrow - Disagree: Bad metascore, listed in one "worst games of all-time" list.
• Lula 3D - Disagree: Bad reviews, cited as being an example of why "adult" games aren't taken seriously (impact; "In 2013, Polygon cited Lula 3D and other "low-brow" pornographic games as a factor in the mainstream video game industry's general non-acceptance of adult video games")
• Ju-On: The Grudge - Justified: Licensed game, no specific citation of it as being the "worst" in a genre/etc.
• Doctor Who: Return to Earth - Borderline: Licensed game, but torn to shreds by British media because it is such a beloved franchise. ScrewAttack listed it as the "worst" Wii game (read: shovelware) of the year. Any more sources? Metascore?
• Sword of the Stars II: Lords of Winter - Borderline: Needs more investigation.
• Postal III - Disagree: Poorly-received, listed as a worst game of all-time by a column, disowned by its publisher.
• Ridge Racer for Vita - Disagree: Was listed as among the worst games for the first half of the year by IGN, consistently poor reviews for lack of content/blatantly reused content.
• The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct - Disagree: Licensed game but a major property, bad reviews, franchise creator publicly criticized it.
• Star Trek - Disagree but needs expansion: "[Star Trek film director]] J. J. Abrams stated in September 2013 that he was "emotionally hurt" by the game's poor reception, and also stated that it "arguably hurt" the reception for Star Trek Into Darkness"
• Fighter Within - Disagree: Motion controller shovelware, but platform-low metascore and bad reviews.
• Raven's Cry - Disagree: I'd say this was actually a well-known one. Explicitly listed as a "worst game of 2015", and the blatant plagiarism too.
• Rugby games - Disagree: Lots of detail, especially from British media.
• Alone in the Dark - Borderline: No specific opinion...
• Umbrella Corps - Disagree: badly-received spin-off in a major franchise, explicitly listed by two sources as among the worst in the franchise as a whole.
• Ghostbusters - Borderline: As mentioned, the studio folded just after it was released. Maybe this was why it was bad?
• Agony - Borderline: No specific citation of it as being the "worst" in a genre/etc.
• The Quiet Man - Borderline: The video game equivalent of a box office bomb?
• Overkill's The Walking Dead- Borderline: Not enough detail beyond development history, No specific citation of it as being the "worst" in a genre/etc., just above Metacritic threshold. But was in development hell and effectively a box office bomb.

ViperSnake151  Talk  05:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind: this list is not just intented to be "list of the worst games" but games notable for negative reception. That will include some of the worst games, but there's a lot of "worst games" that we aren't including because of them being shovelware and the like. So taking Overkill's The Walking Dead, on its release it was slammed by critics, and subsequently pulled, and has lead to problems at Starbreeze. That's definitely notable for negative reception, even if its not a "worst". Mind you, I think this does mean we should be more preferrable if there's a longevity factor as well, where it makes sense. That is, for a game that is just <50 MC rating, there should be more to that than just being low scores - this would be a case like The Quiet Man, where a major AAA title completely whiffed (As noted by sourced). --Masem (t) 13:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I also think this list should be thinned out, especially the 2010s section as it is full of cruft entries. Not every game with negative reception deserves a spot on this list as there are thousands of games with negative reception. IMHO this list should only include games that come at least close to being considered one of the worst of all time (e.g. worst of the year, worst of the platform, worst of the franchise, etc.) or are well-known for negative reception due to other factors such as bugs, defects, poor customer support (the 2013 Sim City disaster comes to mind), etc.. But IMHO half of the 2010s entries are candidates for deletion.Epomis87 (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at this point, and I have to tend to agree, particularly when the game is only just on this list because it is below 50% on an aggregation. We may have to squint a bit and recognize not all sub-50 games are "notable". I don't think we can add being known as a "Worst" game as a required criteria - No Man's Sky would fail that but it clearly be on this list. But titles like Ju-On above, just got its sub-50 and that's it. Maybe what we need is that for games that just have low scores, there has to be some "Worst games of the year"/ or similar list from a reliable source (no random blogs) that includes the game within it to at least show that relative to other games in that period, it had negative reception. So, for example, Ju-on (as it is sourced now) would go, whereas Little Britian could stay because of the few "worst game lists". Do note: this "worst game list" does not include relying on the rankings at GameRankings or MetaCritic.

One thing as I look at the list at my mind is the notion of expectation if a game should be good but turned out bad. This keeps titles like Tony Hawk 5, or Umbrella Corps on there - past games in the series were generally good, so the expectation was higher for these, and of course they bombed. We already sorta deal with the nature of expectation in games, in that we ignore shovelware and typically licensed games. I would definitely say we should do the same for mobile games. --Masem (t) 21:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• So in considering the above, I was walking myself through the list and looking at what I'd remove, and feel we made need some tighter inclusion requirements, if we are keeping "notable for negative reception". Specifically, while using the sub-50 on MC criteria is a good starting point, there are games that are rather unknown that just squeak in under that (Vampire Rain, Ju-On, Mindjack). I feel that just "under 50 MC" is not quite sufficient here. I feel that there has to be some either retrospective article that identifies the game as poorly received for some reason (inclusion on Worst Games List, article discussing poor reception, ec.) , or that there was a clear influence the negative reception had on the game (eg the cases for No Man's Sky, SW BFII, and Overkill's TWD). If the game is just sub-50 MC, and there's no retrospective to that, that's not really "notable", for all purposes. Also, in terms of Worst Game Lists, we need these entries to be high. One game, Sneakers, is on this because it came in as the 81st worst game on a 100-some list. Which is.. no, not really. That should be something along the likes of top 10, top 25 at the worst possible case, otherwise there's call to include these worsts lists completely. We should also avoid "worst games of (year of release)" type entries, because that is generally too soon to judge if it notable.
• But basically, what I feel is that we need to eliminate entries where all it can be shown is a poor MC score. Even games that get 20/100 or less via MC may not have the coverage to consider that notable; we have to recognize there are just bad games out there that few give any attention to and have been lost to the annuls of game history. For example, pulling up this list of the worst games in MC up through 2018 [18] I see titles like FlatOut 3 which had terrible reviews and qualifies under the sub-50/10 reviews thing, but... I don't think anyone consider this a notably bad game and thus should NOT be on this list.
• Basically, I'm looking at the 4 bullets at the top, and think a key thing on the first bullet (sub-50 + 10 reviews) and think we need to be clear that "This should be coupled with some element of a lasting legacy due to the low score from one of the points below; alone it is not sufficient to be on this list." Probably a few other tweaks but basically looking that entries should be more than just "low score with supporting reviews". --Masem (t) 18:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Daikatana

I'm really surprised Daikatana is not mentioned here. Its article even links to this one. It's what I consider the archetypal example of a game which everyone was really hyped for, and then turned out to be rubbish. Kidburla (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Data Design Interactive

Also, just about any game by Data Design Interactive. Not sure if it's worthwhile creating a separate section for games from that studio. There are quite a few, but they are mostly (if not all) terrible. - Kidburla (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Metal Gear Survive

I feel like this game is low quality and hated enough to be on this list. Bristledidiot (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It is just at the edge (+side of 50 on MC) and given some of the above, we should be trying to secure the "worst" games. This would be a case where we need additional commentary about the negative reception of Survive to include. --Masem (t) 22:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Potential inclusion of Pokémon Sword and Shield

Considering a major amount of public dissproval and unfavorable user reviews (to the point that major publications have picked up on it), I'm going to be bold and state that it may be a potential inclusion on this list. I'm aware that it has been rated highly by most large reviewers but user reviews are generally towards the negative side (Example from Metacritic). Thoughts? Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a "no" from me. All the negativity is just from diehard Pokémon fans bitching about how the game doesn't have every Pokémon ever. IMO the reviews are far too positive to consider putting it on this list. JOEBRO64 23:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be a no currently, but also wait and see how things continue. Cnn reported user reviews in the 3.0s, but they're already back above 4.1 now. You have to realize that review bombing on Metacritic is a big thing, and this isn't even a great example of that. Most games that really get slammed drop into the 2.0s or lower. -- ferret (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It might qualify over at review bomb though. --Masem (t) 01:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Likely going to put it on the review bomb article. Thanks for the feedback. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 02:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Another person echoing JoeBro’s sentiments. It fails too many of the inclusion criteria to be included here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass removal of several new additions

@XXX8906: added the following games, which technically meet the above criteria but which 1) had far too much prose about each and 2) really don't quite meet the "notable" facet that previous discussions above get to. We probably should have discussion of these:

• The Guy Game - while sub-50 reception, this is a relatively unknown title (hence failing "notable"). It is definitely appropriate for controversy (used FMV of an underage bikini-clad teenager that led to a lawsuit and banning of the game), but not negative reception. (I have since added that to List of controversial video games).
• Charlie and the Chocolate Factory video games#Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - Direct movie tie in to the Burton film. Seems like standard shovelware we normally exclude has it had no immediate effects (contrast to the Star Trek or Ghostbusters game on the list already)
• Jenga World Tour to me falls into the "shovelware" category (real-life games made playing on Wii w/ motion controls). Outside of one source listing it as a top 10 worst game for one year, not really notable.
• Dragonball Evolution (video game) is again another movie tie-in game so would normally exclude without any known immediate effects.
• Hatred (video game) probably is more controversial (and already on that page), though I can see reasons for keeping it, since its pre-release controversy appeared to drive the just-under 50% MC reviews. Though if we keep, we have to keep it to why it was negatively received. --Masem (t) 00:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

still some of the newer games are hardly notiable for their bad reception, that last one with a 40% score with no controversy or anything else dosent qualify for 'notible for negative reception', that's just a mediocre game of which there are a billion others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:772D:EE00:B821:D374:888D:BD8C (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed "Left Alive" as yes, it was just a low scoring game but no clear sign it was notable for that. --Masem (t) 19:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

WWE 2K20

Anyone think we should add WWE 2K20 on the list? It had already been lambasted by players and critics alike for its control scheme, lacking content and multitude of glitches. --FALLOFALL (t) 19:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be here. It's probably the most hated wrestling video game ever. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a reliable source on the situation at the developer: I see several articles from non-RSes about developers leaving due to how bad the game was and that the budget for WW 2K21 will likely be cut because of this. That would make this a clear reason to include (low score + impact on company). --Masem (t) 05:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I've just added the game to the article, because based on what you've said, and what I've read in the game's article, it looks like it belongs on the page. XXX8906 (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

What you have is not yet sufficient, but I am having problems finding sources for what's been coming out over the last few days about staff leaving Visual Concepts over this. Again, to stress what severl above talk threads discuss, we want games that are routinely known for negative reception, and I'm not yet seeing it here. --Masem (t) 15:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Earthworm Jim 3D

In my opinion, Earthworm Jim 3D deserves to be in the article. I know the ratings for the game are mostly mixed, however, I believe that the game may be worthy of an exception, similar to Sonic the Hedgehog 2006. XXX8906 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll need to present why you believe it should be included. The criteria are to help make basic judgements to avoid the article growing exponentially. What makes Earthworm Jim especially notable for negative reception despite being above 55 on the aggregates? -- ferret (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the game deserves to be included in the article because of critcism of the game. What I mean by that is that even though are above the minimum for inclusion in the article, every review that I looked at is critical of the game. For example, one of the biggest criticisms was about the game's camera, with GameSpot's Nintendo 64 version review stating that they felt the camera was on a "kamikaze mission to destroy the game". Next Generation gave the one star out of five, with the reviewer saying "At some point you wind up asking yourself: who in their right mind would think this was fun? The game was also criticized in comparison to other 3D platform games at the time such as Super Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie. In addition the game was not developed by the same development team as the first two games in the series. As a result, the game was delayed during its development. One of the reviews that I added to the entry talks about this, saying "The game was not received well, with critics claiming that the charm of the originals was lost, and that despite the long development period, the game still felt sloppy and lacked previously promoted features." In addition, one of the developers who worked on the first two games appeared in a video by screwattack called "worst 2d to 3D", and was very critical of the game. I would provide a link to the video if I had one, but unfortunately, it seems that the video has since been removed. XXX8906 (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you have enough here. Yes, it did not get high reviews but it is sitting with an MC above 50%, and I don't feel it has the reputation of having a negative reception. A disappointment after the earlier EWJ games, yes, but not wholly bad (contrast this to the Spyro game on this list, that's a good example where when a franchise's game goes bad, it goes really bad). --Masem (t) 15:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Fallout 76 Helmet Issue

Hey the fallout 76 entry talks about the fact the helmets were recalled because of mold seems to be a bit deceptive as it makes it seem as if it was the power armor edition helmets when they were in fact not really connected to fallout 76 at all and instead a separate product according to both the articles referenced along with this Cnet article ? 2602:306:CC32:B350:50AE:30EC:5786:BEB5 (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Tetris Worlds

Should Tetris Worlds be a game to put on this list? Reception was mixed, but the game came under huge criticism for an "easy spin" feature (where a piece can be continuously rotated even after it hits the ground). At least the GBA version had a mode that replicated the original Tetris and the GameCube and Xbox versions allowed you to disable the easy spin. --24.188.22.145 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd say no, going by past threads that we've been a bit too loose with inclusion. Did it get middling reviews? Sure, and sure the easy spin feature was a notable fault. But I don't think the game has a legacy of being considered bad compared to most of the key ones on this list. --Masem (t) 21:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Mega Man games

The four Mega Man games the Angry Video Game Nerd reviewed in one episode of his namesake series should be on the list. These are Mega Man and Mega Man III for DOS, Mega Man Legends, and Mega Man X7. --24.188.22.145 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither MEga Man LEgends or X7 qualify - their average MC scores are too high and I'm not aware of major user controversies on these. Mega Man DOS should qualify for appearing on "worst game of all time" lists as our article documents, but I don't know about MM III for DOS. --Masem (t) 22:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, checking up on MM for DOS, MM3 should at least be included in the same discussion though the "bad game" distinction seems to be for MM1 here. --Masem (t) 22:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

RollerCoaster Tycoon 4 Mobile

If there is a good candidate for the list, it's RollerCoaster Tycoon 4 Mobile. The game was heavily panned for the use of microtransactions and wait times. Fans say that these ruined the fun aspects of the game series. --24.188.22.145 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We generally do not include mobile games on this list, it would have to have a very significant impact to be included. --Masem (t) 23:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think EuroGamer gave it a really good kicking. Will do a bit of digging. - X201 (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Games to put on the list

Take a look at this listicle and see what games should be appropriate to put on the list.

Fox, Tanner (2018-08-20). "30 Crazy Bad Video Games With (Almost) 0% On Metacritic". The Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.

--24.188.22.145 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that movie/tv/other tie-in games are generally not included unless we know they had a series effect. We also try to avoid indie games, unless they were given significant attention by major publishers (eg No Man's Sky fits) Same with any shovelware games. Ignoring those as well as games that we don't have articles for: we don't presently cover but possibly could: Gravity Games Bike: Street Vert Dirt, Flatout 3: Chaos & Destruction, and Drake of the 99 Dragons. Keep in mind: while sub-50 MC scores are fair for inclusion , I'd personally want to some "reputation" too which I do know Flatout 3 should be able to support, but not sure on the others. --Masem (t) 21:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you that there are some games on this listicle which are already on the list. Such as Drake of the 99 Dragons.

--24.188.22.145 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Vroom in the Night Sky

Should Vroom in the Night Sky be on the list? Critics have been heavily criticizing it, to the point where it appears on several "worst games ever" lists. --24.188.22.145 (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The studio that makes it is a 4-man studio that self-publishers - it is an indie studio for all purposes, and we do not include indie games unless they had prior significant attention (something like No Man's Sky). --Masem (t) 21:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The studio's name is Poisoft, and the page for Poisoft says that Vroom in the Night Sky is the game they are known for, similar to how Big Rigs is the game its developer Stellar Stone is known for. Plus, the page even links to the list. --24.188.22.145 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Family Party: 30 Great Games Obstacle Arcade

I think that Family Party: 30 Great Games Obstacle Arcade should be on the list. Like Game Party, it has received a negative reception from critics. The game's page even links to this list. --24.188.22.145 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Whereas Game Party appears to have a lasting reception as a worst game, Family PArty just appears to be a low-scoring game and lacking the long-term factors here. Shovelware we need to be careful with. --Masem (t) 02:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

More listicles (and a YouTube video)

Take a look at these two listicles and watch this YouTube video (which is the trailer for Homie Rollerz) to see which games would be appropriate to put on the list. --24.188.22.145 (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

https://gamingbolt.com/15-games-that-have-the-lowest-ratings-on-metacritic

https://www.businessinsider.com/worst-video-games-metacritic-2018-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUr30n3Vc_s

I'm going to point to what I mention above: just having a sub-50 MC score is not really sufficient any more for this list. We need the "notable" factor, the sub-50 MC score helps towards that, but alone that's not really enough. --Masem (t) 19:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Games under consideration for deletion

In order to help make a more navigable and condensed page, some of the games listed in the article could be removed.

• Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em (1982): Redundantly contains the same criticisms as Custer's Revenge. It is only slightly less notable.
• Night Trap (1992): Negative reputation and long-term impact is more from controversy rather than the mediocre quality of the game.
• Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero (1997): Negative reception is not as strong as other entries
• South Park (1999): Entry is too short to describe what makes it notable.
• Sneakers (2002): Entry is too short. Negative reception is not notable, nor as strong as other entries.
• Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness (2003): Negative Reception is not as strong as other entries
• Bubble Bobble Revolution (2005): Notability comes from a game-breaking bug. Otherwise, negative reception is not as strong as other entries.
• Game Party (2007): Negative reception is not notable, nor as bad as other entries for the Wii.
• Ju-On: The Grudge (2009): Tie-in game, negative reception is not as strong as other entries
• Fighters Uncaged (2010): Negative reception is not as strong as other entries
• Duke Nukem Forever (2011): Notability is more from its nightmarish development and disappointment than the mediocre quality of the game.
• Ridge Racer 7 (2011) & Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified (2012): The negative receptions of these two Playstation Vita games are no longer as notable as when the entries were first added.
• The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct (2013): Tie-in game
• Star Trek (2013): Tie-in game
• Ashes Cricket (2013): Tie-in game, information is now redundant since Rugby 15 provides a more comprehensive description of a notably bad sports game.
• Sonic Boom (2014): Tie-in game, negative reception is not as strong as other entries (especially Shattered Crystal)
• Hatred (2015): Notability is more from the controversy of its premise. There is no mention of any negative reception based on the quality of the gameplay.
• Alone in the Dark: Illumination (2015): Entry is too short to describe what makes it notable.
• Mighty No. 9 (2015): Notability is more based on bad public relations and disappointment than the mediocre quality of the game.
• No Man's Sky (2016): Had a notably negative response at launch, but is otherwise not a game with a negative reception overall.
• Contra: Rogue Corps (2019): Entry is too short to describe what makes it notable.
• Warcraft III: Reforged (2020): Game was subject to review-bombing, even with an overall negative reception.

This is my first time making a suggestion for edits on Wikipedia. Constructive criticism and conversation will be appreciated. -Viewer200 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• One thing to keep in mind is that negative reception may wane over time but we're considering if it was notable at any point, so some of the points you've suggested are still valid on this list despite them maybe not being leading examples. This is not to say the list can be trimmed and needs to be, and I do believe we need to simply remove those that just have sub-50 aggregate scores and no lingering effects or other major impacts. For example, you are right on Beat 'em and Eat 'em - it's shocker title, but had no sign of being known as one of the worst games as compared to the next one down, Custer's Revenge. But like Night Trap has been ranked as one of the worst video games (in the past, but still) so it should be kept. And things like No Man's Sky have to be kept because of how bad it had it at the start while W3Reforged was negatively received by critics too in addition to the user reviews. --Masem (t) 00:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Critical reception to Warcraft 3: Reforged was actually mixed, although it should still be kept because of the extremely negative reactions from players. --24.188.22.145 (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A mess of an article

Lack of article names from two websites (Spyro's IGN being one of them), red links to non-existent references and a prose problem on the lead. Needs tidying up, don't you think? Espngeek (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply copied from my user talk page: @Espngeek: You're right, it did have a bunch CS1 errors, all of which I just fixed. If you simply start removing reference labels and large sections of otherwise sourced material, without any explanation or edit notes, expect it to be treated as disruption. It hardly took any time at all to check the game articles for the contents of the missing references. -- ferret (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)