Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Discussion Page

The previous discussion has been archived, so I'll set up the nomination system again.

• Post all games for nomination here before adding them to the main page
• Provide a good reason for nomination, plus a minimum of three review sources, ideally from professional critics on well known sites rather than individual user reviews. Meta-review sites that give the game a very low average score (< 25%) are good. Old or obscure games may be allowed to have fewer reviews.

Savager 12:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Game nominations

Arcatera

What about this adventure/RPG hybrid? I remember it got abysmal reviews eveywhere... 79.32.123.10 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Carmageddon 64

While other versions of this were successful, the specific version for N64 was regularly rated the worst game on the console (worse even than the notorious Superman listed on this page) I recall one crrtic saying that it could onl be made more worse if it squirted sulphuric acid into the player's face.Dainamo 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dragon's Lair

While this arcade game was the first to use a Laserdisc to supply the graphics, the gameplay was pretty much non-existent. The PC version was even worse, because the graphics were nothing special, but it still had the total lack of gameplay. Basically, special combinations of moves had to be input by joystick to complete each scene, and these moves had little to nothing to do with any actual movement.

The arcade game was not negatively received, but the Super NES version was. It was a side scroller that had deliberately bad play control to make it feel more like the original game. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hotel Mario

Well, considering the epic cd-i zeldas were on here... Allyourbasearebelongtousomg (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lair

Originally planned as a PS3 launch title, Lair was eventually delayed until October. Not only was it the Screwattack.com SAGY winner for "Worst PS3 Game of 2007," but also it was the lone nominee. The main criticisms is the sheer difficulty to control the dragon with the six-axis controller and the fact the player cannot change the control scheme. A patch to remedy this problem did not come out until six months after the game's release. Furthermore, the poorly developed targeting system made many missions exercises in frustration rather than a legitimate challenge.

It was also hyped that it would be the first game to be fully playable with the PS3's Remote Play function, allowing the game to be played on a PSP as long as the PS3 was connected to an internet connection and the PSP was within range of a WiFi connection. However, the game was unplayable until the game was patched and the PSP's firmware was updated.

Gamespot gave the game a 4.5/10, writing Lair had "what is quite possibly one of the worst control schemes ever devised." X-Play was less kind in giving it a 2/5, calling the game a "beautiful disaster." Finally, Edge Magazine gave it a 3/10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AyaReiko (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully support Lair earning a mention in this article. Normally I wouldn't be this hard on a game, but it was hyped like it was going to be the Greatest Thing EVER. The end result was clearly, as GameSpot put it, "a beautiful disaster."--Benjamnjoel2 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad Day L.A.

Does a metacritic score of 28 earn a place in this article? 68.147.179.34 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rejected Nominations

Army Men

• Reason: series as a whole was considered mediocre, but no individual game was bad enough to be worst game ever

Boiling Point

• Reason: not widely considered that bad

Desert Bus

• Reason: a minigame, not a full game, and intentionally made to be bad

Doom (SNES and Saturn versions)

• Reason: greatly shadowed by the PC version, but not worst games ever made

Dragon Ball GT: Final Bout

• Reason :not widely considered that bad !

South Park Rally

• Reason: average reviews too high

Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly

• Reason: by far the worst of the Spyro games, but not one of the worst games ever
• It's not one of the worst game ever, we can finish it without problems ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.181.194 (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Streets of SimCity

• Reason: not widely considered bad enough

Waterworld

• Reason: average reviews too high

Game Removal "nomination"

Once a game gets enough votes to add to the main article, add it. If someone finds good reason to oppose its addition, or a game that's already been on the article for a while, add it here.

Bomberman: Act Zero

Bomberman: Act Zero is no way considered "worst game ever", and the fact that I have to take it to the talk page shows how misguided the article is

Why on earth am I even here? There's a difference between a shit game and "worst ever", something which you guys failed to acknowledge when you promoted Bomberman: Act Zero to this article. It might be the worst Xbox360 game on metacritic, but how does that possibly qualify as "worst ever", when metacritic itself lists many other worst games is beyond me. The IGN review specifically mentions that it isn't the worst game ever. I also have print reviews from Edge magazine and games TM. Whereas they both scored it 3 and said it was crap, they have scored other games lower. - Hahnchen 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant comment on english grammar removed. See this edit. - Hahnchen 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a list of games described as "the worst game ever" or "one of the worst games ever". Bomberman Zero is lacking in references describing it as either. It doesn't belong on this list.

Also, please ratchet down the hostility here, guys. There's no need to make sarcastic comments, especially ones that fail to explain anything while saying "Watch and learn". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The title is games considered to be the worst, meaning that if people feel the game is the worst, they put it here. However, by definition, if anyone feels that a single game is the worst ever,it can technically be put in here. We of course do not want that, due to the obvious abuse of power (Halo and other critically praised games would definitely wind up here). Game considered the worst ever does mean games with poor reviews, which Bomberman does fall under. However, maybe to solve this dispute, we could change the name of the article to "List of game that are critically panned" or something along those lines. I feel that this might solve Hanchen's complaint, which is probably a general one that Bomberman grew to be the center of. Or maybe as a general rule, three yes votes and zero no votes before adding the game. I've seen games added after I've said yes and it frustrated me, but there was nothing I could do about it because it technically could occur without breaking any rules. Also, people need to stop knocking a user who has a genuine complaint. That is the reason we added this section in the talk page. guitarhero777777 01:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Having an article such as List of critically panned games would just entail taking a cut-off point on gamerankings/metacritic and then just saying anything below 40 is included. This would make a pretty uninteresting article, and would probably be classified as listcruft. Whereas a list of games that have been considered the worst ever by multiple reliable sources wouldn't be. - Hahnchen 02:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The user came here with a negative attitude, and complains about the wording of this article, which is in any way correct.

Some quotes from reviews

GameSpot (not the lack of positive points)

"Bomberman: Act Zero is nothing short of a complete rip-off, especially at full price. With only a couple of modes, no offline multiplayer, no save system, and a weak and repetitive single-player game, it has less to offer than many free demos on Xbox Live Marketplace. You can earn some achievement points by breaking a certain number of blocks, or by surviving a certain number of rounds, but it's not worth playing this game just to get the points. If Act Zero were released as an Xbox Live Arcade game for a fraction of the price, it might almost be passable. As it is, it's simply a waste of your time and money."

GameDaily

"There are games that are good, games that are bad, and games that make you ask just what sane development team through their concept would possibly work. Bomberman: Act Zero fits in the latter category, revitalizing the old-school concept with a new-school cyberpunk design that alienates its material completely. The graphics are bland, the gameplay stunted, and the multiplayer limited to online only. Throw in a useless first-person bombing mode that isn't even first-person and you've got a game that's simply a bomb. No, not the bomb, just a bomb. The impact that Bomberman: Act Zero leaves on gamers is equal to that of a damp firecracker. Skip it."

G4

"Act: Zero accomplishes what even Al Qaeda was unable to do: turn "Bomberman" into a dirty word."

The above examples are that of someone who has failed to see the difference between a shit game and "worst ever" game. The collated reviews on metacritic as I mentioned before rank this is the worst Xbox360 game to be released. There's a whale of a difference between worst game ever, and worst Xbox360 game ever. There are over 10 Xbox games with lower aggregate scores, and more than 30 more dire games on the PC and note that it metacritic barely touches the PC's vast back catalogue. - Hahnchen 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A shit game?

When the reason for development is doubted, when it is said it is in no way passable, and when it is compared to Al Qaeda, then you are not talking of just a shit game.

How about you be open with us and tell what you have with the game? Are you one of the developers or something? JackSparrow Ninja 05:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Are you one of the developers or something?" - Given my thousands of different edits on many different subjects, and you assume I must have a vested interest in the game because we have an obvious disagreement. Are you going to comment on my character more or are you going to get to the point. It's right, you absolutely fail to see the difference, I can come up with another 10 review quotes like that for other random games. Why don't you take a look at [1][2] or [3]? They should all be on the "considered worst ever list"? - Hahnchen 16:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You absolutely fail to see that you, nor anyone here, has a veto for whatever reason. And yes, if those others are considered worst ever, they too should be discussed for addition.

You say there are no supports for the claim this game is one of the worst ever, and when I show you there are plenty, you switch subjects. What are you doing here? JackSparrow Ninja 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is where you get it wrong. This isn't just about crap games. This isn't even about one of the worst games, but this is about games which have been considered THE worst. And just generally bad reviews should not mean that it is added to the list. Power of veto? You are the only one that has objected to its removal, I raised this point at the Wikiproject talk page about the crap that goes on here, and you can see the feedback here. Also, look at my comment directly above your review quotes, could you address that. - Hahnchen 19:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen is right. Using a "general view" of reviews is considered original research. It might be true, but we can't come to that conclusion on Wikipedia. Using review A and review B plus review C, would be doing the research itself (even with true and cited facts). This is different from using more than one source for the same fact. In other words, A B and C could all be used if they independently had come to the conclusion of "worst ever". If you have to combined their results in order to come to that conclusion, then it's OR. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They all independently say -all in their own wording- it's one of the worst games ever. JackSparrow Ninja 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(move indentation to more readable way)

Yeah, it makes no sense at all that what Ned is saying is OR, as I mentioned above it's exactly what was done in List of major opera composers, in a way. They took a bunch of lists (10, IIRC) that were general lists of composers, and selected those who appeared on multiple lists. I don't see why a similar method can't be used here, though if you want to say that the reviews have to say "(one of) the worst game ever" or whatnot, I can see that. I don't think only a single source saying it should in fact fall in this list, as the very fact "worst ever" is an opinion means there needs to be multiple agreeing sources. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Then all you've done is found another article that breaks the policy. This isn't me saying this, this is what Wikipedia:No original research says. You might find a grey area every now and again, but these references are pretty much OR violations. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's true, then the article should be scrapped. I cannot see how quoting one source can work here, as something like, say, Final Fantasy VIII gets enough hate that I can see it being called that in a so-called reliable source somewhere. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of major opera composers seems to be in a grey area. They are cross-checking lists to get a "new" result, but at the same time the lists they use can independently be used. In other words, each list is saying "this is a major opera composer". What seems to be happening here is that data such as "2 out of 10" is being used with other data to make a statement of "worst". The difference is that the different game listings don't all say "worst" but instead just have mostly low-ranks. A low rank probably means it sucks, but a lot of things suck, so we're talking about the sucky of the suck, the ones where notable sources have said "this is the lowest of the lows, this is the worst" not just "this is bad and scored low". -- Ned Scott 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there, I'm just saying that IMO any game on the list should at least have multiple sources saying it's the worst, not that one should glean worst from some vague criteria. Looking above, I misread you, and what you're saying is actually similar to that. I certainly agree that "a bunch of low scores" doesn't mean it should be included on this list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

Bomberman: Act Zero deletion

Please await a discussion before deleting. That's how this article has been agreed upon. JackSparrow Ninja 05:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The burden is, as always, on the one who wants content included to provide references. (This is in WP:V.) I am removing unreferenced, borderline libelous, claims. Please use extreme caution before adding anything to a list such as this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm gonna check them all. Lots of these are really, really poorly referenced, or have no references that say "worst ever" at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you have sidetracked this discussion to be about english, when it's obviously not. If Mr X says XXX is the worst ever game, it goes on the list. If Mr Y says YYY is the worst ever game, it goes on the list. This is why there are multiple items on the list (I cannot believe I actually have to spell this out). I think that the criteria for games to be added onto this list are too lax, and even given the talk page consensus requirements, still fails. The 20 year history of gaming has managed to generate more worst-evers than the 100 year film history tells us something. For example, the Spice Girls game is included because of 2 reviews from online outlets (how much influence do you think gamespot and IGN had in 98?) And we have 3 games from the N64 alone, we aren't just listing crap games, we're listing games considered the worst ever. - Hahnchen 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The title is games considered to be the worst, meaning that if people feel the game is the worst, they put it here. However, by definition, if anyone feels that a single game is the worst ever,it can technically be put in here. We of course do not want that, due to the obvious abuse of power (Halo and other critically praised games would definitely wind up here). Game considered the worst ever does mean games with poor reviews, which Bomberman does fall under. However, maybe to solve this dispute, we could change the name of the article to "List of game that are critically panned" or something along those lines. I feel that this might solve Hanchen's complaint, which is probably a general one that Bomberman grew to be the center of. Or maybe as a general rule, three yes votes and zero no votes before adding the game. I've seen games added after I've said yes and it frustrated me, but there was nothing I could do about it because it technically could occur without breaking any rules. Also, people need to stop knocking a user who has a genuine complaint. That is the reason we added this section in the talk page. guitarhero777777 01:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wording in references

It does not take the exact words "worst game ever", to nominate it to be on this list. Being a reviewer myself, and maybe using common sense, not all people express it in such a way. This does however not make the game any better, or the thought behind the review any weaker. JackSparrow Ninja 05:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right - It doesn't have to say the words "worst ever". I'd accept things like the lowest scores possible on Metacritic, or for example, Kabuki Warriors, which was the only game to receive a 1/10 rating from Edge. What I don't accept are just a few reviews like for the Spice Girls game. Or just generally negative reviews like Bomberman. As stated above, I can't believe I actually had to take it to the talk page to get stuff removed. - Hahnchen 05:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's being changed, then. A reference describing a game as merely bad is no longer sufficient to include it on this list. If this is going to be the list of video games considered the worst ever, someone needs to describe it as worst ever or it doesn't belong on this borderline defamatory list. I'm not even happy with such-and-such game having the lowest score a reviewer has ever given. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It should not be looked at how many reviews there are, but which percentage scores how. Old games often have fewer reviews then more current games, because the internet wasn't as big back then. That doesn't mean the game is suddenly better.

Admin or not, you are not the person to decide this alone AMIB. JackSparrow Ninja 05:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the list of games described as the worst ever. So, we need a reference describing the game as worst ever. Editors' opinions about what's the worst effort don't really matter. If there's a sufficient reference, the game belongs here, if there isn't, the game doesn't. I don't see any good reason not to construe this potentially defamatory list narrowly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I cleaned it out. From here on out, we need sources describing the game as "worst ever" or it doesn't belong here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack, much of what you are describing is original research as is not allowed on Wikipedia per official (and completely not optional) policy Wikipedia:No original research. It doesn't matter what was "decided" here, that's the policy. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, why isn't this list judged with the same criteria as in Films considered the worst ever ? EpiVictor 13:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

AMIB, you need to have agreement on the talk page before you remove a load of game from the article. If you did that first I might support your quest to remove questionable info from the article. As you removed them without discussion I am inclined to bring all entries deleted to the talk page and start a discussion to get a few of them inserted again (not all of them, some were of questionable quality) such as E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Action 52. This will allow discussion and consensus to develop.

Also, stop being so Bold. It causes tension to develop between users. El cid the hero 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what?! ET was removed? That game has the status of causing the videogame-crash in the early 80's. This only shows how rediculous this is. JackSparrow Ninja 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I second JackSparrow's comment that E.T. needs to be added back because:

• It's both pictured and mentioned in the Video game crash of 1983 page as one of the worst games - and the caption even links here!
• The November 2006 CNBC documentary on the video game industry (Game On: The Unauthorized History of Video Games) implies the $25 million licensing deal of E.T. from Spielberg and subsequent flop of E.T. helped lead to a huge shortfall in Atari's earnings in 1983/84.
• I've seen it on at least one other list and a video game authority on the CNBC show (above) said it's on the worst lists --George3 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the article

This whole argument reminds me of the huge war on List of major opera composers. It seemed start out with people adding names arbitrarily, then later them taking an informal poll that seemed to end up with two or three people agreeing. After some arguing, and a person who for various reasons ended up being arbitrated, and this and it, it came down to using published lists, last time I checked it was ten.

I think a similar thing could be done here. There are plenty of print and web articles out there that have "top ten worst games ever", etc. Simply gather a bunch of them (especially general ones, but system or company specific can work) and add games that appear on a good number of the lists. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a coupl of ideas in the Bobmerman removal post that I think might help. Maybe we should completely change the article to be like the greatest games articles, where we provid lists of certain websites reviews. guitarhero777777 02:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Sourcing?

It seems an awful lot of credence is given to this "Seanbaby" fellow's reviews. Maybe fewer direct quotes from a single reviewer would make the article seem more academic. The suggestion to do comparative, comprehensive analysis of many 'worst' lists is a valuable one. Elsewhise, it seems a bit arbitrary.

Clean up reverted

I have reverted the (so-called) clean up of A Man in Black.
Wanting to clean up is one thing, but doing that without seriously looking at it whatsoever, is vandalism. Nothing more, nothing less.

For example:
You say of the following two games they are not called worst games ever.

Elf Bowling 1&2 - IGN review

"Look, these Nintendo DS games even lack the ability to actually quit the action back to the main menu, which shows just how much effort went into these ports. Hint: it wasn't much. It's a single-chuckle joke that's extended into a 20 dollar purchase. And once that laugh is expelled, you're left two of the crappiest games ever developed on the Nintendo DS platform. Merry Christmas."

The exact word "worst game ever" is indeed not included, but you are being extremely hard-headed not to get the point of that conclusion. IGN using the word crappiest instead of worst does in no way justify your 'case'.

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

This is what made relook your so-called clean up.

"this game is cited as being a major cause of the Video Game Crash of 1983"
Look at it's Wiki-page, the references are overrun with references that cite it as the worst game ever.

I don't know what you had in mind when you started this, but what you did made no sense whatsoever. From removing games that are on it's own page cited as worst ever, to games that in it's references on this page are cited as worst ever.

We're gonna do this the other way, as has been agreed upon - for good reasons.
If you think a game should not be there, you take it to the talk page and show why it doesn't belong on the list. What has happened here now, there are just no words for it. JackSparrow Ninja 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

ET is easily sourced as one of the worst games of all time, it was a stunning disaster. I can provide multiple print references to it which aren't even on the main article. What you, nor I can do is provide the same kind of referencing for the Spice Girls game, or indeed Bomberman. Just because a game gets bad reviews across the board, it is not considered the worst game ever. And now we've got over the english problems above, we can do something about it. The fact that I have to take something as utterly trivial as the Bomberman removal to the talk page is an absolute farce and shows that the nonconstructive "process over product" attitude is wrong. Do I have to get it signed in triplicate to remove it? Even though it's wrong? I don't agree with the inclusion of Elf Bowling either, this is meant to be "worst game ever", not worst for each console. As I mentioned above, Bomberman might be shit, and it might have the lowest Xbox360 metacritic score, but there are many on the site which fare even worse. How can a system which didn't have massive third party support like the N64 manage 3 games on the worst ever list? How can the 20 years of computer gaming generate more worst evers than the 100 year film industry? The guidelines for inclusion to this list must be tightened up severely, and you can't just go by low average scores which incidentally is what people have done before. - Hahnchen 01:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article."

WP:V is official policy and overrides any "consensus" made on this talk page. We will not use a system where removals have to be discussed first. -- Ned Scott 09:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what tags are for. As is clear though, AMIB's clean up was based on nothing, deleting things that were properly referenced. We need to clean this up in a decent way, not like this. JackSparrow Ninja 09:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research is not a proper reference. AMIB's deletions are supported by core policies. -- Ned Scott 09:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

ET

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982, Atari 2600), a game based on the film E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial, was released for the Atari 2600 in 1982. In a time when the market was being flooded with dozens upon dozens of lackluster games, this game is cited as being a major cause of the Video Game Crash of 1983. Atari, expecting that the E.T. franchise and Christmas season would boost sales, produced four million copies of the game (even though there were only ten million Atari 2600 consoles in existence). The game itself was a disaster, with poor controls and shoddy gameplay, a fact owed to its hasty development in just five weeks, in an attempt to meet the anticipated Christmas rush. Sales were dismal and most copies went unsold. The company then (secretly) buried the remainder of the cartridges in a landfill site near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The fiasco cost Atari millions of dollars and contributed to the subsequent collapse of the company.

I'd have to say somewhat secretly since it became relatively known shortly after.

This ref is useful in establishing that it was a financial disaster and not at all a good game. We still need someone describing it as "the worst ever" or "one of the worst ever." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

it top of seanbaby's list and is in the dumbest moments in video gaming article. in which it say "That gave Atari programmer Howard Scott Warshaw six weeks to design, program, and bug test the game. That he succeeded was a major surprise; that the game sucked should have surprised no one." also, Snopes.com also says "The sheer awfulness of the finished product was unprecedented. Atari rushed E.T. through development in a matter of ... in circles to prevent him from falling into pits. Atari produced five million E.T. cartridges, and according to Atari's then-president and CEO, "nearly all of them came back."" this gives an indercation of how bad it is El cid the hero 10:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Then by all means, add it citing those refs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how there can still be people that doubt E.T.'s "worse ever"dness with all those references...even the landfill story is still doubted. Weird. EpiVictor 11:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

i just added it back into the article El cid the hero 10:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And I just removed it. The reason I copied it to talk is so that references could be added here, then the section could go back in the article. You didn't add any references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed in 2 minutes. I'm not gonna waste anymore words on you. JackSparrow Ninja 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, I suspect discussion will be a whole lot better now that you aren't flaming people anymore. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Complete Makeover

I think we should change the article to fit the format of the Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever, where they don't list them like this article, but instead use polls and lists from websites. I think this will help solve our verifibility and nomination problems. Also, we don't have to fight over which games go in, which I noticed has occured heavily since the Bomberman removal nomination. Just a suggestion so we don't have so much infighting and solve all problems. guitarhero777777 05:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. I was surprised to see a really good list article when I clicked on that title. We should definitely apply the same system here. -- Ned Scott 08:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you guys. It seems right that these two articles should be close in the way of presentation, and Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever has a good way of presenting its matter. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here have the time or the knowhow in order to make such a drastic change? guitarhero777777 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox page? -- Ned Scott 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

personaly i think we should be more like the list of Films considered the worst ever. El cid the hero 13:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's a much better page to pattern after. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally disagree bedcause we would still have the problem with nominations and edit wars over the slightest disagreement over how it being the worst is mentioned in the article. guitarhero777777 18:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you needed references...

Here is an article by PC World listing their worst games ever, published less than a month ago. SKS2K6 07:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And hey, guess what the worst game is...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Barbie Horse Adventure

Should this game be added? It has negative reviews from sources such as IGN and was featured as such on X-Play. --CF90 20:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the game was actually all that bad. I suspect its negative publicity had more to do with the Penny Arcade strips it featured in. Sockatume 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing (pc)

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing for the pc has suffered much flak for its clipping, outdated graphics, literally no ai, and awkward physics (you can leave the map and drive into purgatory and drive over water.) Deemed the worst game ever by gamespot.com and X-play, this horrible pc racing game truly deserves a spot on the list. However, it appears to have gained a cult status. They deem themselves the BROTRRers, who think that all the above bugs were intentional and believe that BROTRR is the best game ever.

the page is too big

Due to the large number of nominations and the discussion about the nature of the page itself, the talk page has become to large and cumbersome to be of efficient use.

To remedy this I suggest the following...

1) The creation of a sub page for the discussion of game nominations.

2) The removal of all nomination that have no sources

What do people think about this? El cid the hero 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend getting rid of the nominating committee and sticking to a set criteria, like every other list on WP. We don't need a cabal to decide upon content, we have plenty of policies that work just fine for the rest of the encycloped and I do not see anything with this topic that needs nominations. To me, the set criteria is in the title of the article: a game must be considered the worst ever. Not merely just one of the worst, it must be called the #1 worst. To pass Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, only opinions by notable people/organizations/magazines/polls/etc. should be considered...ie, if they can have an article written about them per WP:N, their opinions can be considered for this list. That alone should eliminate 40-50% of the games on this list. hateless 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As expressed on the last AFD, Films considered the worst ever should be the model for this page. 80% of the intro is also unnecessary. hateless 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

i've diceded to be bold and creat the subpage in order to slim down this one. if you dissagree with what i've done, feel free to revert my edit and and discuss it with me El cid the hero 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ping Pals

Referred to as one of the worst games of all time by EGM. Anyone got that issue? Also lower than 30% on GameRankings with the 20 review minimum. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy and Giga Pets Explorer stink

If someone can search up in History, they might find out why Family Guy Video Game sucks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.46.20 (talk • contribs).

Rise of the Robots

It is famously bad. :Rise of the Robots

Ruse of the Robots, more like, eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.142.66.199 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

i believe we had this in the list before but AMIB removed it. it you can find sources for it i could support adding it El cid the hero 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

well it should be added, as it inspired this

Rise Of The Robots, eh?

How has this happened? Clueless buffoon that I am, I really thought that the days of huge, ridiculous hype campaigns leading to the release of unutterably dreadful rip-off games were finally dead and gone. Never again, I thought, would poor unfortunate gullibles fork out six months' pocket money on a game so desperately awful it would quite conceivably (and rightly) put them off the idea of ever buying another one for the rest of their lives. Who among us, in all honesty, could blame some burnt-fingered adolescent for resorting to the car-boot sale and the dodgy market stall for ever, sending every other format the way of the ST and all the 8-bits before it, if they'd just blown anywhere between 40 and 60 quid on a stinking, rancid pile of shite like Rise Of The Robots?

How can it be possible for a game to take so long to come out, have so many apparently talented people working on it, and still be such a stagnant pool of horse wank? We're talking here about a two-player beat-'em-up, after all, in which it's literally impossible for player two to win a game if player one holds down a certain direction on the joystick. We're talking about a beat-'em-up in which holding down that certain direction results in the defeat of every computer opponent on all but one of the four difficulty settings. We're talking about a game in which thousands of hours of artificial intelligence development have resulted in a computer opponent who cowers in a corner at the player's first move and stays there, immobile, until it is defeated. We're talking about a game that a seven-year old can complete within 11 minutes of first loading it up. Without looking at the screen.

I mean, a lot of people work for Mirage/Time Warner. Didn't anybody fucking NOTICE? Didn't it strike anyone as a bit off that in a game genre where the two-player versus mode is everything, only one player actually ever had a chance (and a 100% chance at that) of winning? Am I being stupid here? Does it really not matter? In all that time of artificial intelligence work, didn't it occur to anyone to see if maybe, just maybe, holding down fire and the up-right diagonal resulted in the defeat of every single opponent? Anyone AT ALL? Maybe some of Mirage's playtesters could write in and explain to us all exactly what the fuck they've been doing for the last 18 months? I, for one, would be interested. For professional reasons.

written by Stuart Campbell see the main article of rise of the robots for details Romanista 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you people take off "Action 52?"

Why did you people take off "Action 52?" It was a pretty bad game, after all. There were quite a few technical problems in the games, such as money hurting you in "Streamers" (that clown must be allergic to money).

Besides, it ranked #7 on Gamespy's 10 Most Shameful Games List. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ky-Guy (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

From what I can tell, anything unreferenced was taken off. Feel free to put them back in if you can provide proper sources (and yeah, its horrid status is pretty well known) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?

I've never played it, but it's almost universally considered a crappy game and was nominated "Dud of the Year" for multiple systems on Metacritic. [4] Looks like a canidate to me. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an automatically-generated list based on aggregate scores. Incorporating that automatically-generated list for every year it's made would bloat this list with merely bad games no human felt the need to describe as "worst ever." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z: Ultimate Battle 22

Should we add this game ? The game got tons of negtive reviews. It got a 1.2/10 on gamespot [5]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.24.2 (talk • contribs) What other reviews did it get? Did it recieve negative reception from the hoardes of DBZ fans? Crowstar^{Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends!} 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Gods and Generals

Should we add Gods and Generals to the list as well? It was critically panned and won "Flat-Out Worst Game of 2003" from Gamespot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MysticLyman (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

i agree but we need sources. If you can find reliable source, I will support it El cid the hero 09:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That one was actually present in the "pre-cataclism" versions of the article, and it WAD backed up with sources. No idea why it's not present now, nor why it was removed. EpiVictor 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When I removed it, the references were this, a review that describes it as "hopelessly misguided" but not as the worst anything, and a couple of Gamerankings user reviews.

If someone readded it with a reference in a reliable source describing it as worst ever, that would be okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename/Refocus?

This article seems to be causing a lot of divisive arguments here. Might it not be better to simply adjust the focus? A term like "Worst ever" demands that we source this thing from here to eternity, and it's still going to draw flak. Wouldn't it be better to change the focus of the article to something like "List of video games notable for being unusually bad" (or something similar)?

That way instead of requiring one or more reviews with "worst game ever" (or something similar), we can expand the scope to include games which were nearly universally reviled, were the subject of unusual amounts of negative press, etc. As this is a subjective list, it needs to have a clearly defined set of criteria. I propose the following:

• Recieved one or more awards for how "bad" the game was considered on a technical, financial, or general level. That would include things like the "Golden Mullet" award.

• Was listed in two or more "Worst Game Ever" lists, published by notable sources. So the EGM list of Worst Games Ever would count as one of the two lists, but "(Random Site X)'s list of the worst games ever!" would not.

• Fell within the focus of an article in a notable source devoted specifically to covering bad games (I.E. a PSM Article entitled "10 Games to avoid at all costs).

• Recieved an abnormally low (10% or less overall) Metacritic or Game Ranking score, with the qualifier that if more than two major review sources (EGM, IGN, Gamespy, etc) score it as merely being average this discludes the item from the list (unless it meets another criteria, as mentioned above).

Would these criteria satisfy everyone? It would narrow the focus specifically to items which have been the focus of "bad games" articles or "bad games" awards, but allow inclusion of items which have recieved universally low scores like Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

All but the last bullet, which I strongly, strongly oppose, is the current status quo, essentially. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It'd make it easier to have it noted here, though a lot of these don't have sourcing. I'm tempted to treat this almost as seriously as WP:BLP in regards to sourcing, as "Worst Game Ever" is a pretty serious title to be throwing around. I'm iffy about the scores as well, but there are a few "worst ever" games which didn't get much attention because they were just that terrible. The requirement is actually pretty strict, and while I don't set much store by number-based scores, a universal rating below 10% (allowing for one, and only one exception) guarantees the game was drek anyway. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It can happen if the game wasn't widely reviewed. It's also yet another case of putting too much stock in numerical scores, something that is inexplicably done exclusively among video game fans. (I don't see people averaging movie or book review scores, or car reviews, or anything else.) For those games that didn't get much attention, why are we giving them attention? I believe in reflecting the sources, rather than endeavoring to correct their percieved mistakes.

Now, as for the rest, I wholeheartedly agree. Borderline-libellous claims should be handled seriously, and I've tried to keep this clean of unattributed (if not necessarily inline-cited) claims. I'm not sure how to do that any more effectively than just removing them; if you have any ideas, that'd be good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think once I'm finished with the push I'm doing on the DMC articles, I'm going to just go through an remove any items without claims (and add a couple which should be up here, but for some reason are not). The onus for any facts called into question is for the posting editor to provide a source, not for the removing editor to come up with a reason for removal. Those OR, POV, and Weasel tags have been on the article long enough that it'd be fair to just go through right now and remove any unattributed material. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet of what name we should go to then, but it would definitely be a good thing. Now people are nagging over the use of the exact word "worse ever", completely ignoring when alternate words are being used to describe it, such as the case with Bomberman: Act Zero.

Such an article would be much more effective and informative, rather then an article that has a knife to it's throat that every entry should be sourced with the exact word "worse ever" being used. Such bureaucrism is only hurting Wikipedia, so a name change that would exclude something rediculous like that would certainly be benefitial. JackSparrow Ninja 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How does "Video Games notable for their negative reception" (or something similar) sound? The concept of the list is good and encyclopedic. The absolute bottom of the barrel games deserve to be on some master list such as this, and it would also expand the concept to include reactions in which a good game failed to live up to hype (Peter Molyneux, for example, recieved death threats after Fable was released). Perhaps we could keep the list in it's current format, but expand each entry to include items which may have garnered their position here.

Examining the article, I'm thinking that getting rid of the Categories of "worst ever" games is going to be necessary, as well as "Criticism of the concept". The second wouldn't apply, and the first is unnecessary: If the game is going to be on the list, we'd damn well better be noting WHY it's on here. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so I've fixed the title. Now to begin the work on the article. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words..?

I'm just wondering what the point is of marking an article with the "weasel words" tag, when at its core, the entire subject matter of the article is all a matter of people's opinion in the first place. I'm not saying that it's very likely, but there COULD be people that actually like "Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing", for instance. It's all a matter of opinion, and as such, I think the use of "weasel words" in an article with a nature such as this... is frankly, pretty inevitable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.194.17.202 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Things like this: "Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon (1993, CD-i) is widely considered to be the worst Zelda game ever created." Widely considered is a weasel word (who consists of widely?), as there's no way of sourcing the statement. While I've got no doubts that the game is considered bad by everyone who's played it, I've also got no doubts that nine out of ten Zelda fans don't even know what it is, let alone have actually played it. When dealing with an article like this, we must ourselves be neutral and be strict in sourcing statements which are POV. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New title means new criteria!

To make a long story short, older entries that were removed on the grounds of not being actually "the worst ever" should be brought back on the grounds that they DID however attract negative reception. One title to rule them all: DAIKATANA. It was present in early versions of the article, was removed on the grounds of "Yeah, it was received negatively also due to hype, gameplay etc. but it got scores between 40-60% and sold a few copies, so it's not worst ever", but now the new title means that it should be brought back, and the cases of a lot of previous entries should be re-evaluated. EpiVictor 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Daikatana would fit. I'll add it up right away, if you don't beat me to it. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

don't forget gods and generals. El cid the hero 12:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

New Criteria Discussion

Here's a tentative list of new criteria for the article. This aims to distinguish the truly offensive crimes against digital play from those passable, forgettable games which slink into anonymity months after release.

Inclusion Criteria

For a game to be included in this article, it must have:

• 1) Received one or more awards for how "bad" the game was considered on a technical, financial, or general level. That would include things like the "Golden Mullet" award.

• 2) Been listed on one or more "Worst Game Ever" lists, published by notable sources. So the EGM list of Worst Games Ever would count as one of the two lists, but "(Non-Notable Site X)'s list of the worst games ever!" would not. Question: Should this be refined to include only games which garnered top-honors on such lists? For example, on a list of the 100 worst games ever, should we fail to include 21-100 from the list?

• 3) Fell within the focus of an article in a notable source devoted specifically to covering bad games (I.E. a PSM Article entitled "10 Games to avoid at all costs", or "Why (Game X) should be tossed into the sea")

• 4) Received negative media coverage from multiple sources due to themes or content within the game.

• 5) Been panned by audiences and critics due to the pre-release hype which generated focus on the lack of promised items within the game as opposed to the game's actual content.

• 6) Received an abnormally low score from multiple sources. Question: Should this criteria should be through talk-page nomination only?

In addition to the above criteria, the game must be notable enough to have it's own article here on Wikipedia.

Comments

I obviously support the criteria because I wrote them. Looking for input, though. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 00:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of them except for #5. Hype, unlived up to or not, has nothing to do with how good a game is. (At least in my experience, I haven't had a real "Close encounter of the crappy kind" yet.) Crowstar^{Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends!} 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fable did not get bad reception!

It got 8.6 from Gamespot, enough to remove it i say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.166.133.155 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Molyneux got death threats. Note the plural there. Even positive reviews note that Fable lacked a lot of promised features, and the game is almost as well known for failing to live up to it's own hype as it is for the gameplay. It's not a bad game, but that's not what this list is about. It's about negative reception and people repeatedly calling Fable out for lacking a lot of promised features is a negative reception. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The renaming has gone all horrible

Video games notable for negative reception is an incredibly horrible name for an article. It's name is so incredibly vague, broad and ill defined, I could literally put any game I wanted on the list. For example, Devil May Cry 2 is ridiculous. Yes, it won a "Most disappointing" game award, but no, it wasn't flat out awful and a fairly trivial web award really doesn't mean a thing, given that they're given out every year.

Fable doesn't deserve to appear on the list either. The game was well received. So what that Molyneux got death threats, you know that happens with every single games studio out there. Bungie gets them just for not revealing things in trailers[6]. In the age of faceless impersonal internet communications, these happen all the time, they're probably happening on Wikipedia right now, receiving a forum death threat does not throw the game on some sort of boobie prize Wikipedia list.

I can name a shitload of games that could pass muster with the criteria set out here. Here are a few:

• Deus Ex 2 - Criticised for selling out to the consoles. Warren Spector had to put out a half-baked response/apology due to the reception of the demo.[7]
• SiN, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, Boiling Point: Road to Hell - Bugged to crap.
• All Gamespot's "most dissapointing" and "worst" awards. Sod that, every publication's yearly awards.
• Pretty much every violent game ever released has had a negative reception in the popular press. Grand Theft Auto, Kingpin: Life of Crime etc.

The whole point of the crackdown I did on this once, was to cut this list down. This should have been a shortlist of the absolute bottom of the barrel. Those games which have flat out been called the worst ever. Right now, the article title is so vague as to be meaningless. - hahnchen 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So what would you suggest we name it? Worst Game Ever got a lot of flak for POV issues. A lot of games were, on a technical level, decent but are well known for perceived faults. I'd challenge you to find anyone who has good things to say about Devil May Cry 2, as just one example. If you feel the criteria are loose, by all means make a suggestion to tighten it up. There are a number of games which ARE notable for the negative reception they've received.

Again, Fable is notable for the negative reception it received. Bar none, every review makes issue of the fact that Fable was not what it was promised to be. You say that the death threats aren't major? How many other studios make an issue of it enough for it to be repeated in multiple interviews?

As regards your slash and burn (which I'll be reverting shortly)...

Charlie's Angels was #5 on Nintendo Power's list of the Worst 5 games. That would have qualified it even by the old standards.

Devil May Cry 2 got an award for "Most Disappointing Game of 2003". That says quite a bit about it's perception in the community, let alone all the negative commentary in the various reviews.

Fable, as mentioned above, is widely noted as being disappointing due to the difference between what was promised and what was actually produced.

The game you cut, Color a Dinosaur, will be removed after I revert things. Note I did the name change based on a general consensus from both A Man in Black and JackSparrow Ninja, and others seem to approve of the change as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On another note... How is this list moving from 16 to 21 titles making it "so vague as to be meaningless"? The requirements are still fairly strict, but allow for games to be included which have received a notably terrible reception without actually having to dig up sources which explicitly call or include it on a list of "the worst game(s) ever". Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Err, no. It's not moved to 21 titles has it. It's opened up the list to all sorts of crap, such as the titles I've just suggested. There hasn't been a real consensus on this at all, the only reason I found out about the page move was that someone has listed on WP:RM a requested move of Films considered the worst ever → Films notable for negative reception citing this page as an example. Here's more examples of how you've not just opened up the list to 21 titles:

• Numbers 4, 3 and 2 from Nintendo Power
• EVERY "Worst game" and "Disappointing game" award, Gamespy, Gamespot, IGN, Edge, EGM, etc. awards every single year
• An absolute swathe of titles scraping the bottom of the Gamerankings, Metacritic barrel.

Saying that Fable failed to live up to the hype is true, but it isn't exactly alone in doing so is it? How can you possibly call Devil May Cry 2 and Fable's reception to be "notably terrible"? To list every disappointing game here would probably increase the list's size exponentially and then the whole thing would get deleted for being listcruft. Pretty much any list with the word "notable" in is culled as such. - hahnchen 09:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that the proposed criteria are too lenient, feel free to suggest some which are more strict. I'd be more than happy to help tighten the criteria up so that NOT every game is included. I don't want this to become simple listcruft, not by a long shot, and the reason I made the change is because, as you can see from the talk page and assorted edits in the article's history, the article recieved a lot of attention and caused a lot of divisive arguments over just what could be construed as "The worst games ever". The title is just a title. It can be changed without any difficulties, but the last title "List of games considered the worst ever" was causing problems with sourcing, etc. However, I do stand by my conviction that certain games deserve to be on this list despite not being called "The worst game ever". Daikatana got a lot of coverage from the media on how big it's budget was, the way it was marketed, and it's generally cited as the reason for Ion Storm's downfall. Super Columbine Massacre RPG got a lot of negative media attention due to what it depicted, and the Postal series has likewise gotten a lot of negative media attention. Maybe there should be a seperate article called "Video games which recieved negative media attention", but I figured it'd be easier to just roll the worst ever list in with games which get a lot of negative attention. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fable, Barbie Horse Adventures and DMC2

I don't think they should be on there because they were so hyped and didn't deliver. Just because a game doesn't live up to it's expectations doesn't make it bad. Both were still called good, but were just letdowns. I also agree Barbie Horse Adventures should be on there.

Kblavie 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Was it recieved badly by the target audience? Crowstar^{Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends!} 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pimp My Ride

I have just included Pimp My Ride, it got terrible ratings, and is to this day a terrible adaptation of a TV show. DaGrandPuba 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

THE CROW: CITY OF ANGELS pc,psx,saturn

Sorry this is my first edit / discussion on wikipedia

ive nominated

THE CROW: CITY OF ANGELS pc,psx,saturn

2 reviews below

http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/games/saturn/crow.htm

City of Crap Ahhhhh.... Another game based on a movie. This time, however, the game is based on an awful movie, which was the sequel to a pretty bad movie (somehow completed despite the untimely death of the lead actor, Brandon Lee), which was based on a slightly better than average comic book. Did you follow all that? I bet you can guess what it all adds up to. Crap. Whoever it was at Acclaim that put the stamp of approval on The Crow: City of Angels, who authorized the expenditure of a single dollar for its production, should be immediately fired. Then he should be clubbed and skinned.

The lead character and namesake of The Crow is an avenging spirit. He returns from the grave to avenge his own death, and that of his girlfriend. The form of the angry undead? A Karate master zombie ghost in smeared mime makeup. Very goth. Very East Village. Mmmmmmm... Artsy. Spare us.

In The Crow: City of Angels he returns again, this time to avenge the deaths of people killed by a murder-for-kicks gang that videotapes their deeds. To get through to them, the Crow must beat up thugs, bikers, biker chicks, leather daddies and assorted petty criminals.

The fighters are all polygonal, with static backgrounds and fixed camera angles, like the highly acclaimed Resident Evil. This is the only resemblance between The Crow and Resident Evil. The backgrounds are poorly done and many of the camera angles are just stupid.

The polygonal characters actually look pretty good. Their movement is smooth and the graphics are detailed right down to the clown makeup on the main character's face. There is a fairly wide variety of enemies, so you don't have to fight the same guy over and over endlessly. Which brings us to the worst part of the game: the fighting.

The gameplay is just bad, really bad. Moving the Crow is difficult at best. He has a few fighting moves and a variety of weapons to pick up, but he looks ridiculous using all of them. The fighting engine is the worst I've ever seen with polygons moving right through each other. There is almost no collision detection at all in this game. Arms and legs pass through each other with no effect. Stand too close to your enemy and you kick right through his chest, doing no damage.

Graphically, this game looks like an alpha test version. This is not a good thing. The PC version looks identical to the Saturn and Playstation versions, with slightly better definition in the backgrounds.

But what about the sound? I am happy to say that consistency has prevailed. The game music is the auditory equivalent to a festering toothache. I turned off the sound, but the horrid putrescence passed off as the 'soundtrack' stayed with me like a stomach virus. It just plain sucks.

It is mind-boggling that the same company who gave us Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, with its tight, accurate polygons, could also release this turkey the very same month. Acclaim, I say unto you: Have you no shame?

Simply put, The Crow: City of Angels is one of the worst titles I've ever seen. Avoid all contact with this game. Should contact occur, immediately rinse with water and consult a physician.

review 2

amazon customer review

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Crow-City-of-Angels/dp/B000087EXQ

Once again the masters of making rubbish licenced games has failed in making a game worth buying, the crow city of angels for the psx is not worth the money. Acclaim have put no effort into this title the action sequences & voice overs are some of the worst in video gaming history. In this game there are no tasks or objectives you simply walk around punching people even with that due to the games rickety control system you'll spend most of your time facing the wrong way & punching air. to make things worse the camera angles are dreadful & by the time your eyes have adjusted to what is going on you will be getting pounded by your foes. Characters in the game are disproportionate in size and move as though they're stuck in mud. they also lack alot of facial detail & personality. There is alot of glitches in this game such as body parts passing through walls & other body parts. The weapons in this game include knives, bottles, pipes, molotove cocktails & swords but none of these make the game enjoyable. About the only good things in the game is the background graphics but unfortunatly arent interactive & the White Zombie tune in the background.

If you are a fan of the crow movies this still isnt worth the money, again Acclaim have let down movie fans with there poor quality movie to game convertions

• ps the game also runs at an incredibly low framerate

I have added Pimp My Ride, this time with Citatations :O

Pimp My Ride (the game) sucks and deserves a place in here, I have the citation in there, don't delete or revert it. DaGrandPuba 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Pimp My Ride on Video games notable for negative reception...

Did the game recieve any notable awards for it's badness? Was it on any notable "List of Worst Game Ever"-style listings? Was there an article written about how bad the game is outside of a review? That generally seems to be the requirement to be on this list, not just a poor review. The Gamespot reviews you cited, for example list the game as 4.5, which is not abyssmal. In fact, according to Metacritic the reviews are just "generally negative", which is bad but doesn't make the game notable for it's badness. I've removed the article again based on that. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

VIP for the Playstation 1

This game is really bad, the graphics are shocking and the gameplay is simple and repetitive. The Official Playstation Magazine UK gave it 3/10 in issue 80. Also in issue 105 of the magazine they rereviewed it and gave it 1/10. They said and I quote "Naff pretend beat 'em up. As fake and daft as Pammy's mammaries". Total Video Games gave the game 19/100. I think only reason people rate it high is because it stars Pamela Anderson, which could be a reason why people buy the game, but not even Pamela Anderson can stop this from being utter crap. Assorted reviews for VIP. MONGOMAN.

From that link, it only got two really terrible reviews, one even gives it 75/100. It's obviously a bad game, but I don't know that it's quite bad enough. Anyone? Miremare 13:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Home Alone (FC)

Home Alone for the Famicom is quite possibly one of the worst games of all time; Super Man 64 is a gem in comparison with it, as you repeatedly do the same exact same thing for twenty minutes. Although there are a variety of items in the game, all of them do the same thing, for the same duration of time, and break after the same number of uses! ET wasn't even THIS bad...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.254.152.187 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 August 2007.

It needs to meet the criteria though. So far, it's just your opinion.--Svetovid 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

NES suggestions

Chiller (http://www.ironicconsumer.com/videogames/chiller.html), Baby Boomer, Dr. Chaos, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Back to the Future (I recall a review that said "like Paperboy without the fun"), Mystery Quest, Captain Comic, Jaws, Superman. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Change the name back.

Waaah, boo-hoo, it violates POV! If so, then we might as well, change Movies Considered the Worse Ever to some pansy title. Mr. Raptor 06:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing to "Video games considered the worst ever" is a bad idea, and completely unecessary. It's far too narrow and we're going to be able to provide VERY few references to prove that any of these games have been considered the "worst ever" by a reliable source. Those without references will have to be removed. Miremare 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? Many game reviewers believe that the games listed are POS, and they say so in the links. Mr. Raptor 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Me? Yes, I've read the article. What exactly does "POS" mean? Miremare 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Piece of shit".--SeizureDog 03:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, undoubtedly they are, but what I meant, if Mr. Raptor is still reading, is that if the proposed rename were to occur, sourcing a game as a "piece of shit" or whatever other description, wouldn't be adequate - it would need to be described as "the worst ever" - in those words. If it weren't described by reliable sources as "the worst ever" it wouldn't by definition be suitable for inclusion, no matter how bad it really is. Miremare 10:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

{Revolution X}

Hi to all, Revolution X i'snt a bad game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.74.121 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree Revolution X is not a bad game, but I've only played the arcade version. It seems the negative response has to do with home versions, but it's rather confusing. As gun games go, I think it's one of the better ones, in spite of an especially high level of sexism, which seems to fit with the Aerosmith territory. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde

Can you please add this one? It has two very negative reviews. I've also played it myself and IMO it is the worst game ever made.

Please add it.

-I agree. This game definately deserves a spot on the list. It is considered by Angry Video Game Nerd to be the worst game ever. mattiator (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a big AVGN fan, but this is only one source. I didn't even know about the game before this review. Although the game is genuinely terrible, Hyde certainly does not have enough coverage. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Something Awful call it one of the worst games ever? Knowitall (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Here is a link to the review http://www.somethingawful.com/d/rom-pit/dr-jekyll-mr.php mattiator (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Taboo: The Sixth Sense

This one definitively deserves a good place in this article. Seanbaby added it among the worst games.--Twicemost 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think Yoshi's Story was this bad?

While Nintendo brought a Yoshi game early in the Nintendo 64's lifespan, critics were generally displeased with Yoshi's Story. As a spiritual and literal successor to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, the game was considered a "let-down" to long-time fans. Critics cited many omissions, from the removal of smart, complex level designs and graphical details to the complete absence of vehicle morphing. Joe Fielder of GameSpot noted that Yoshi's Story "was obviously designed so that younger players could play through quickly and feel some sense of accomplishment."[1] Well-known publications and websites, such as GameSpot[2], awarded the game a "5.3" for "Mediocre", and All Game Guide and Game's Domain both awarded Yoshi's Story a "5.0." Probably the hardest aspect for Nintendo fans to stomach was the original MSRP of Yoshi's Story in the US: $59.99. This figure was coupled with the fact that, due to Yoshi's Story's early release in the N64's lifespan, the price of the console itself was still fresh in consumer's minds. The plot of Yoshi's Story further alienated older players.

The storyline and general difficulty did not sit well with critics or fans. The plot of the game involved the theft of the Yoshi's "Happy Tree." The difficulty was generally simple and forgiving. For example, a single playthrough only required an hour of continuous play, and the final boss room was equipped with an endless supply of health power-ups. Through these inclusions and omissions, Yoshi's Story failed to live up to the high expectations set by the game's predecessor. In addition, Yoshi's Story's reception brought the issue of "Nintendo's focus on children" to the forefront due to the cute graphical touches and story. The Virtual Console version received similar reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.125.47 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As much as I personally hate the game, it's not bad enough for the list. IGN gave it 7.0, for example. The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog Genesis

I think it would be a good idea if we removed this from the list on the grounds that the only explanation given is its GameSpot review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticLyman (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The game titled "Sonic the Hedgehog Genesis" was released in 2006 for the GBA. It was abysmal. –Gunslinger47 02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminate information

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so there needs to be some barrier to inclusion on this list. I would suggest a game is only notably bad if one or preferably more published or broadcast sources have included it in a "worst games" or similar section. Merely having negative reviews all around is insufficient if no one outside of reviewers are commenting on it. –Gunslinger47 02:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Silver Edge (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat Advance

I think this game should be added to list. It currently has a 34% rating on Gamerankings and received the first 0 score in Electronic Gaming Monthly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyroseed13 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Transformers: Convoy no Nazo

This game should be added as many people claim the game is far too difficult, cheap deaths are recieved very often, and the bosses are repetitive every level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.220.51 (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pac-Man (Atari 2600)

I was wondering if this game could be on the list.

Pac-Man (Atari 2600)

Unlike the arcade version of Pac-Man, which was very successful, Pac-Man for Atari 2600 was very poor, and this game was cited, along with E.T. The Extra Terrestrial for Atari 2600, to be the major cause of triggering the video game crash of 1983. PC World rated it as the fifth worst game of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talk • contribs) 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

2nd nomination, as it has been covered time and time again that the Atari 2600 port of Pac-Man is ABYSMAL. The game was discussed on the Atari episode of G4TV's Game Makers, and former high ranking Atari employees dragged this rushed, unfinished prototype through the mud.

I am not certain that it 'caused' the crash of 1983, as it was a 1981 release. However, Atari made the incredibly ridiculous decision of printing more copies of Pac-Man than there were consoles. I guess the figured, "They'll love it so much, they'll buy TWO copies!!"

I'm surprised the game is not on the list. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is already on the list, see Video games notable for negative reception#P. --Silver Edge (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Pac-Man and E.T. for 2600 are listed here as a couple of the worst games of all time and with very poor sales. But they are also both listed on the page for the best games of all time. That page cites them in a short list noting their sales, Pac-man being far above the others with 7 million sold. So are they bad games or good games? (One could argue both, but it should be explained.) Sales, however should be either good or bad. Donimo (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Turning Point: Fall of Liberty

This should definitely be added due to the very negative reviews it has received, including X-Play giving it a 1 out of 5 and Gamespy with a 1.5 out of 5, along with other generally negative reviews. I also think the Lost: Via Domus game should be removed as the reviews were not entirely negative compared to most other games that were far worse and didn't make it on here. CrazyConan 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Since no one has responded, I will just add it onto the article for the time being.

(Crazyconan (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree about Lost: Via Domus. Though there were no notable particularly positive reviews, the game was given praise for good storytelling and area design.·· TVO_talk 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

George of the Jungle and the Search for the Secret

I never played this game, but I've read bad reviews for it. What do you think?

[Gamerankings' List of Reviews]

Never heard of it. And looking at the player reviews it should probably be kept off the list. MysticLyman (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Crash bandicoot and the wrath of Cortex and that new spongebob game

shouldn't these be somewhere in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinxthecat (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, provide some reasoning. The Wrath of Cortex got decent reviews from both GameSpot and IGN (6.7 and 7.4 respectively) and "that new spongebob game" is effectively meaningless.·· TVO_talk 00:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Baroque (2008)

Can Baroque really be considered for the list? I realize the reception was not positive, however it sports decent scores from GameSpot, IGN, and Game Rankings.·· TVO_talk 00:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Removed it already. If few "medicore" reviews can save Daikatana from this list, Baroque shouldn't stay here neither. L-Zwei (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No, Baroque should not go on this list. Though there are many negative reviews, there are enough positive reviews to keep it alive. I also personally own this game, and do not find it to be untollerable.

No PS3?

Why there is no mention of the PS3 eve though the 360 is mentioned and Games released on both COnsoles feature the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.0.219.40 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed categorization / subsections

I realize this article was originally "games considered the worst ever", but seeing as the guidelines for inclusion have become better defined, I'd like to propose a reorganization. Instead of an alphabetic list, meaningful subsections can help this article be more encyclopedic. For instance: games noted for poor reviews, games noted for moral outrage, games noted for heavy unsubstantiated promotion. This would also address many AfD complaints; subsections would clearly lay out what's in the list and why. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons Wrestling

Reason: The game was criticized for having simplistic, unbalanced gameplay and having bad graphics. It also disgusted wrestling fans due to the lack of moves in the game and the simple fact that it didn't play like a wrestling game to begin with. Because of this, The Simpsons Wrestling is considered by many to be the worst Simpsons game ever and one of the worst games ever. (Laughreach (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)) 23:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree, doesn't have one of or THE lowest score from IGN? Stabby Joe (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sonic 3D Blast

Upon release, Sonic 3D Blast gained mixed responses from fans and critics alike-mostly negative, however for many reasons which include (taken from Gamespot.com's review for each version):

Clunky Control: This mainly stems from the isometric nature of the game, the slippery movement of Sonic and the fact that the Genesis and the (default) Saturn controller used D-Pads instead of analog sticks (However, to make up for this the Saturn version is compatible with the 3D Analog controller which originally came bundled with NiGHTS into Dreams.) Repetitive Gameplay: The gameplay solely relied on destroying enemies and bringing the Flicky birds to the Warp Rings so that Sonic can progress through the levels. The Main lack of Sonic's trademark speed: Unless a speed-up power up was used, Sonic merely jogs when moving in game. Incredibly easy special stages: A skilled player could easily beat all seven special stages without failure by Rusty Ruin Zone Act 2 in the Genesis version. However, the game was praised for it's graphics, boasting some of the best visuals ever seen on the Sega Genesis. It was also lauded for it's great soundtrack and challenging boss fights.

The Saturn version however received better reception than the Genesis version due to superior graphics and music, offering a solution to the control problems, and for restricting getting an emerald from the special stage to one per act, changing the special stages to play more like Sonic the Hedgehog 2's special stages making the special stages far more difficult. Unfortunetely, the Saturn version was also criticised for featuring notoriously long loading times and lacking a save feature, which many people saw as an enormous oversight.

However, the PC version of 3D Blast received poor reception due to even worse controls, lacking some of the Saturn versions brilliant graphical effects, and boasting an inferior special stage. It was praised however, for having a save feature and shorter loading times.

Gamespot Reviews:

Sonic 3D Blast (Genesis): N/A Sonic 3D Blast (Wii's Virtual Console): 4.0 Poor Sonic 3D Blast (Saturn): 7.0 Good Sonic 3D Blast (PC): 5.6 Mediocre Laughreach (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Justice League Heroes

The console versions were praised for customization and co-op gameplay, but the combat was considered too simple.[1][2][3]

The DS version was not received as well by many fans[4], with Nintendo Power giving it a 3.5, GameSpot a 5/10[5] and IGN a 6.4[6] Laughreach (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)