Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Donkey Kong Barrel Blast

I think Donkey Kong: Barrel Blast must be added on the list. Barrel Blast garnered a Metascore of 45 out of 100 according to Metacritic. A number of reviews lamented the decision to replace the bongo control scheme with that using the Wii Remote.

It was criticized for "slow racing, shallow gameplay, and an overall boring experience" by IGN.[5] Gamespot labeled this game a fifth-rate Mario Kart clone.[6] The highest rated Metacritic review, by Nintendo Power, called it a "mundane racer". GameTrailers criticized the game for it's imprecise controls, lack of online mode and the fact that the Bongo Controls were left out of the game despite the fact that Gamecube controllers are fully compatible with the Wii.

The Simpsons Wrestling, Sonic 3D Blast and Justice League Heroes (only DS version), these games, must be added too. Laughreach (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Below average? Yes. Notably so? No.--SeizureDog (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's a difference between crap and the worst thing ever.--.--Benjamnjoel2 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are all sick! If anything needs to be added its TMNT on the DS. Don't bash the Simpsons Wrestling anyway lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kperfekt722 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have played all of the above and I will tell you most of them deserve to be put on this list except for Sonic 3D Blast It is a bad game but it's not bad enough TMNT on the Nes is worse than the D.S one so add both.

There are worse Sonic Games than 3D Blast in particular Sonic Shuffle, Sonic Labyrinth and Sonic R. Add all three if you want there terrible i've played them, also they were in Screwattacks top five worst Sonic Games.

I think Chicken Shoot(Wii), Billy The Wizard(Wii), Bubsy3D(Playstation), Ninjabreadman (Wii) and Rock and Roll adventures (Wii) should also be added if Anubis2 got on there so should these.

Action 52

Creating a formal discussion, and establishing one thing: There HAS to be response. Noticeable response. One person can't endorse it alongside the nominator and have it pass, nor can the nominator say "no one responded, so I get to add it anyway".

So what does everyone think of Action 52's inclusion? I find it to be well-sourced, and it seems to be pretty bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a definite yes to Action 52. Miremare 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some reviews for Action 52. It should have the "honor" of being on here. 1. SomethingAwful http://www.somethingawful.com/d/rom-pit/action-52.php

I'll Back you on that addition (Patmancav66)

From what I know, all 52 of the games are brocken, unbetalbe, glitchy, or so bad, you would not want to play it in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

mattiator (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Surprise, Hardcore Gaming found it's bad but not true abysmal. L-Zwei (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I've decided that, based on several editors ignoring the rules of inclusion in this article, that I may nominate this article for deletion. One user in particular inspired me to go this way, Jedi, because he in every single message he's sent to me, indicates that he couldn't give two craps about the established rules. It's clear to me that editorial interest in this article is fading, and the people who said that they would make any attempt at maintaining the article are either gone or are people like Jedi, who consider maintaining the article to be "letting every single entry that appears on the article to stay, regardless of quality". - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion just 20 days ago[1] where it was snowball kept. What exactly is the criteria for inclusion? I showed up here and it looks gutted. Where's the link to Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing for example? --Pixelface (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is a crock of shit. I mentioned my thoughts when Link asked for input at WT:VG. I've made these concerns known on this page here, and here.

Originally, I wanted the list of worst games ever cleared up to show only those that were sourced to have been labelled "worst ever", but the editors here didn't like that, because it'd mean having to remove their pet hates from the list. So it was renamed from List of video games considered the worst ever to this current ill defined mess. Right now, you can just put in any game which has received a rating of 2/10 or below instantly. You could also argue for other "dissappointing" games to be on the list, above, I had to argue for Devil May Cry 2's and Fable's removal.

Move this back to List of video games considered the worst ever, make the criteria a heck of a lot more stringent so that whatever GameSpot's worst DS game of 2007 and their multitude of other meaningless awards don't get on here. - hahnchen 11:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, it may have been snowballed, but looking at it, it was horribly unsourced and didn't have any criteria for inclusion that was being followed, so it survived AfD DESPITE being unworthy of having passed in its current condition. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is an example of how to do it wrong. At this rate, I should add Super Mario Sunshine because it didn't live up to the namesake of Super Mario 64, Alvin and the Chipmunks because it recieved a 1.7 on IGN, Chicken Shoot, Kawasaki Jet Ski, Classic British Motor Racing, and so on. None of these games are extremely notable -- they all received bad reviews, but none of them have ever been regarded as the "worst of all time". If we want to find games with "negative reception", we can go to IGN (for example) and just show the score "1" for various systems ([2]). Judging by the comments so far and the games listed, I feel that we even have a NPOV problem here -- users are throwing in whatever games they feel were a disappointment to themselves, and they throw in one bad review to show it. Does Ping Pals really need to be listed here? It was a disappointment, but it wasn't a disappoint so bad as to make it notable on this sort of article.

This should be moved back to its old name and watched carefully to make sure all criteria is followed. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree to move back. Despite sound much more harsh, "considered the worst ever" is actually less POV for us, Wikipedia editors. And as Nomader note, the current name is too board. L-Zwei (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As I think I said in one of the previous AfD's for this, reverting to the previous title would likely result in very few entries in this article. Just how many games have, since E.T. in 1982, been described by a reliable source as "the worst ever"? I don't know, but I'd guess practically none. Miremare 15:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, Superman 64, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Pac-Man (Atari 2600), Waterworld (video game) (saw it listed once in a list, not sure if I could dig up enough credible sources though) to name a few. I don't think we need to have a long list -- we just need to have a complete one. I think this list could take some inspiration from the List of Harvest Moon titles (which is currently a featured list candidate) in formatting style. Use the notes section for each game to explain (with sources) why the game is in the running for the worst game ever made, and give a source that lists it as such.

My largest problem with the current title, is if I hate Halo 3, I could put it on this list if I have at least one credible that even calls it a "disappointment". This page needs a serious editorial standard, and I think if we stick with the worst games ever made instead of just "negative reaction", it would work a whole lot better. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Halo 3 doesn't belong on the list because it's not "notable for negative reception." It's actually notable for the positive reception it received — with Game Rankings listing it at one time as the 6th best reviewed game on the Xbox 360. You just have to define the criteria for this list better. I'd be fine with setting a criteria like under a 20% (or some lower rating) on Game Rankings *and* Metacritic, and a separate criteria for games released before those sites existed. --Pixelface (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He mean, with current title. You can add Halo 3, a notable good game, to this list with only a single crediable media claim it's good but "disappoinment". Ignore other review that call it excellent, because you think that one medicore is "notable". L-Zwei (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that was the point I'm trying to make. Halo 3 was just an example. In the past, games such as Fable, were included on the list. Fable, though a disappointment after all the hype, isn't notable for negative critical reaction. I think we really need to maintain a list of games which reviewers have specifically mentioned as the worst game "ever made" -- for newer games, we can add a Metacritic or Game Rankings requirement as well, but see here for what I'd like to do with this list. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your draft looks nice, but I think the source would be far too confusing for newer editors to edit. Putting each game in its own box is an interesting look, but I don't think that's the way to go here. --Pixelface (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, one critic calling a game a "disappointment" is not the criteria for inclusion. People were probably adding any games they felt like to this list because the criteria for inclusion in the list was never clearly defined. The first sentence of this article mentioned "negative publicity." The lead section needs to be rewritten to show the "inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list" according to WP:LIST. --Pixelface (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely concur about the lead section. Before we make further work on the list itself, I feel that we should start writing up a new lead, but I haven't the time in the next few days (with regards to exams) to do it myself. I'd appreciate it if we could, in a collaborative effort of sorts, come up with something for this.

About the format, I do feel that the boxes are superior, however, I can understand the problem editing it. Once we get a more stable version of this article, we should definitly put them back up, but especially for now where reverts seem to be happening every other day, I'd be more than happy if it were taken down. I'll continue working on it in my userspace as notable games come in, and I'll work it to fit the criteria if need be -- if in fact however, the consensus is to not use the format, I'd also be more than happy to abandon the format if need be. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to another article where boxes like that are used? --Pixelface (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. List of F-Zero titles, List of Castlevania titles, and List of Harvest Moon titles. The first two are both featured lists, and the last is a featured list candidate. I modified the boxes a bit so as to move the system releases over to the left side to leave more room for comments about the game and sources.

If you believe that the format isn't worth maintaining, I'd be more than happy to either try to figure something else out or revert back to the old format. I understand unlike those other articles, that more depth needs to be given to the descriptions here -- however, I think that this does limit how much people write (as the games listed should only talk about why and how they're considered to either be "the worst ever" or why they're notable for negative reception). It's up to everyone here. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Worlds?

Given that the PC version received mixed reviews (65% which is close to fair reviews) and the 360 having 50% which while negative isn't the lowest in comparison to most on this list, plus it does have a couple of positive reviews, I'm not sure if it comparable with 10 to 30% quality games given the vast amount of games with equal or lower score not on here. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Rigs

Normally, I wouldn't ask for an article to be added, but even under the criteria for games considered to be the "worst of all time", Big Rigs ranks up there. Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. GameSpot called it "one of those rare pieces of work" (referring to in the opening, where they talk about how rare it is for a game to truly be considered one of the worst ever made [3]). The overall critic score on the site is a 0.4 -- the Thunderbolt review calls it the worst ever made ([4]), the Netjak review ([5]) compares it against other awful games and rates it lower. This is truly one of the worst games ever made, and the least we could would be to remember it on this page. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

list editing

wasnt this list bigger? why is it smaller than before FW07 (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New Format

Alright, I've started to draw up a new format for this article. I put it in a sub-page of my Userspace, so feel free to look at it. I'm trying to go for more of a look that we see at featured lists (and featured list candidates) for specific video game titles (such as List of Harvest Moon titles, List of Castlevania titles, and List of F-Zero titles. If there isn't a consensus for it, I'll stop working on it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've pretty much finished for today -- I made up a generic sort of list, but I can't find any sources that explicitly say Pac-Man for the Atari 2600 was the worst game ever made -- it's just "one of the worst". We need to seriously find a title that can incorporate those truly awesome games that are just outside of being the total worst. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The list isn't only for the absolute "worst" games anymore, it's for video games notable for their negative reception. You don't have to find sources that say the Atari 2600 vesion of Pac-Man was the worst, just sources that say it was really really bad. --Pixelface (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is going to move, look at the arguments made at AFD, and look at the comments above. The current wording "notable for negative reception" is untenable, because it's too broad and ill defined. - hahnchen 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

so why is the list considerably smaller than beforeFW07 (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The list is smaller because we're making the criteria for games to get into the list more strenuous as we move the name. Let's face it -- though Anubis II did suck (to put it bluntly), it's far from the worst game ever made. Right now, games that are simply "disappointments" are being placed on the list, and it's frankly ridiculous -- from now on, I think we should make true requirements for getting onto the list (as in at least one reliable source calling the game "the worst ever made" or something of the like -- every game on the list I've provided has that). -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nomader, you should move the systems and dates it was released to into the left column, and leave the entire right hand side for commentary. Get rid of the word Notes: in each table, it's unnecessary. - hahnchen 12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the "Notes:" part, and I moved the release dates and systems to the left column. I'd like to create a smaller box similar to what there was before on the bottom of the left side of the graph, but I'm to abysmal at wiki-formatting right now to create it. I'll work on it for a few days, and see how it looks. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the new list format, a big improvement on the current. But I still don't agree with the proposed title change; of those on the new list, only E.T. and Big Rigs have more than one citation as "worst ever", and while one source may technically fulfill the criteria, it doesn't seem enough to me, to condemn a game as the worst ever on the single say-so of one website, especially one such as netjak.com. I also don't agree that the current title is too broad and ill-defined - the problem with the article before is that no one was maintaining it, so pretty much anything that got in stayed in if it was referenced. What is really needed here is people to keep this page on their watchlists and comment on proposed additions. We should be deciding here by concensus what counts as "notable for negative reception". If this were the case, the Halo 3 example, or whatever other undeserving games, certainly would not get in. Miremare 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't like either of the names, Miremare. "Negative Reception" is far too loose, while "The worst game ever" is too restrictive -- if it comes down between the two, I'd rather have "the worst game ever" simply because Negative reception is far too ambiguous. If someone could come up with another name, I'd be all the happier for it. As for the games I have on that list now, I used Netjak as a reliable source simply because the number of games with a reviewer or anything else calling it "the worst game ever made" are simply put, rather sparse. Still, we need to make sure that games that are bad in quality overall but aren't that special bad (Anubis II and such) don't get placed on the list. I'd be willing to stick around and keep tabs on this page if need be. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 16:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I was organizing that list I've created by date of release, the earliest being at the top and so forth. If anyone would prefer to see it in a different manner (such as alphabetized), please comment here. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Change the format back. This box code is much too technical for regular users to wade through. It looks neato and all but it needs to go. --Pixelface (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be great if we can have less-complex infobox. It look good and work fine, but the problem arise when we have to add a full paragraph description. Guess it would be better to drop. L-Zwei (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, the lists I based this on didn't use the easier coded template found here. I'll start migrating the boxes I have now over to the template found there if nobody has objections, or we can just move back to what we had previously. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, moving them to a template would make this it a lot easier to update. Keep up the good work. - hahnchen 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hachchen, I'm going to start adding games which have a Metacritic (and/or Game Rankings) score of 20% or lower. If you feel that any of the games I add don't meet the new requirements for this list, feel free to remove them. Jedi and any other editors, please give me a couple weeks to add more games to the list and then see if it's too your liking. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why were so many games removed?

Action 52, Big Rigs, Zelda Wand of Gamelon and a ton of other games were removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.4.98 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to only list games with notable sources. Big Rigs has notable sources and is listed in the current re-design, and Zelda Wand of Gamelon I've understood to be one of the worst Zelda games of all time -- I'll probably look for sources for it after this upcoming week. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is "we" and what exactly are "notable sources"? --Pixelface (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Call for Consensus

Right now, I'm noticing two very different groups editing this article. Currently, one group is trying to keep the article in its current form with games such as Escape from Bug Island and George of the Jungle and the Search for the Secret. The other camp wishes to reserve the list for games which in reviews for the game and lists of the worst games ever, it is entitled as such.

This needs to stop. I'm tired of reverting the page along with three or four other users, and I can't work on making on a new format for the list. I'd appreciate a discussion (not a vote, per WP:POLLS) on the matter and a general consensus for how the article should move forward. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunely, that Jedi-wannabe dude simply revert without come to this discussion. So we have to live with it. L-Zwei (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• look, L-Zwei, for one, the jedi thing is JUST A NAME, for two, what's the point of even having the article if it only has 5 games on it? for three, thanks for calling this discussion, Nomader. for four (no pun intended), i want everyone reading this to post their thoughts on the subject. for five, May The Force Be With You. I am a jedi (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It was my pleasure, Jedi. For the record, I'd ask that everyone involved attempt to follow WP:CIVIL -- pretty much... let's be nice to each other, or at least pretend to be.

Jedi, I do intend to expand that list from five once I get the chance, but Wikipedia articles should be based on quality over quantity. I understand your concern about the length of the article, and it's something that I'm not too happy about either, but it's a start. I think we should go about by adding to the current format by looking through an older version ([6]) of the article (Note: that version should not be saved -- it will overwrite what we currently have now), and see which games are truly notable.

I think that only games that are notable enough in their badness should be listed here (bear with me, I know this is a lot of writing). For example, Custer's Revenge, Pac-Man (Atari 2600), and all of the Zelda CD-i adventures belong on this list because they have reputable sources which name them bad. On the other hand, Super Columbine Massacre RPG! (notable for being controversial, not bad), Turning Point: Fall of Liberty (a 5/10 from IGN is far too good to make this list), and Terra Wars: NY Invasion (3.1 is again, too high) are all games that might be notable for being mediocre, but none are truly awful.

We need to place standards on this list that are obvious to all editors -- if people are having trouble using the new format, I'll be willing to help anyone. It is a tad confusing to edit, I suppose. Cheers everyone. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the new format, this article should move back to List of video games considered the worst ever if these discussions decide to leave it this way. Sure, having the list this strict means we'd lose dire games like Lair (video game) and Daikatana, but in order to include those games, the criteria would have had to be ridiculously lax, and the list would never be conclusive.

I think there are a handful more games which will find their place on the list. For example, in the long list before, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Heroes of the Lance is cited as being featured in Issue 100 of Nintendo Power, as number 4 on their "worst of all time" list. What was at number 1? - hahnchen 00:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your intent, nomader, and i suggest at least a 3.5/10 average rating from at least 3 notable websites (Gamespot or IGN)\publications (Nintendo Power or Electronic Gaming Monthly) for inclusion, as such means it was, true to the article's claim, "notable" for negative reception. This puts Terra Wars on the list for sure. I also suggest that rather than keeping the format in question, we adapt it to the article version that we all know and love. I love that you're looking for a diplomatic solution to this madness, rather than the aggressive negotiations that link guy tried. I am a jedi (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jedi, I recently found a template here that's what the confusing code that's currently in the article is based on -- it was just recently brought to my attention. Would you allow for the template to be added into the article if we use the simpler form (that's easier to edit and add)?

Also, I feel that 3.5 is far too un-notable -- if we're going to be sticking with this article name (which, per Hahnchen, I'd prefer it not to be), I'd suggest 2.0 or lower if at all possible from two or three notable sources or an obvious mentioned from a source (that must be listed at WP:VG/S per guideline or an otherwise widely [[|WP:V|verifiable]] source per Wikipedia policy) that calls the game "the worst ever" (i.e. IGN, Electronic Gaming Monthly, GameSpot, EuroGamer, GameSpy, etc.).

For now, Jedi, I think it'd be best if we leave the page as is, no matter how either of us feel -- the last thing we need is someone to violate WP:3RR. I sort of fear that. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding nomader, but what do you mean by "a simpler form"? I'm fine with however the page looks, so long as the list has, at very least, 20 games on it. I also feel that 2.0 is a little extreme, as different sourses have different opinions, and therefore, that would count out several of the games already on this list. EX: Game X is released, Gamespot gives it a 2.0, GameTrailers gives it a 3.7, IGN gives it a 1.5, and 1up gives it a C-. That game, although very poorly recieved, wouldn't be on the list. I am a jedi (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Convert to 5-stars score. 2.0 is one star, an truly bad score while 3.0 is a star and half, a bad but not the worst. Well, 3.0 or 30% still sound reasonable (possibly because I used to read PC Gamer and their utter crap score is 30% and below.)

For number of games, mind you, I remember this list start with only 10 games or so. So restart from 6 games isn't too bad. The list will grow eventually. L-Zwei (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

please, l-zwei, think of how awesome the article used to be, think of how annoying it is to click on an article link, only to find that it's a stub with very little content. the latter, my friend, is what i'm trying to prevent, please don't fight me on this, don't be like that link dude. I am a jedi (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I, on other hand, think it is better to rebuild this article from solid ground. The content can be re-add later if it is truly worth noting. Lets leave the list be and help Nomaderto work with format and entries's criteria first, then we can perform grave-digging to bring back some worth loss entries. L-Zwei (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SIGH...it appear that we're stuggle on edit war and little progress has been made. Anyone plan for protection request? L-Zwei (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, L-Zwei, i just need you to stop reverting my edits, and we CAN improve the article. just stop siding with link and let Nomader help us talk this over. I am a jedi (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to avoid a protection request at all possible costs. We can't get any work done if we can't edit it. What I'm thinking of doing Zwei is to let Jedi have the page he wants, while we can continue working on the article at my userspace. I would much prefer however, to have a well-sourced article that has no biases (as this one currently does), but it looks like that option is dwindling away.

Jedi, I would prefer it not to be this way. Currently, I fear the article you are keen to put up is sourced with things that really have nothing to do with being notable for negative reception -- for example, there aren't any sources for Ultimate Duck Hunting (the only reference isn't linked), Super Columbine Massacre RPG! (on one worst of list, no other critical reception, only notable for the guy being less than kind to the victims), Pimp my Ride (video game) (the game simply stunk, nothing else), Jumper: Griffin's Story (it's just another movie game that didn't live up to the no expectations it was given), InuYasha: Secret of the Divine Jewel (a 3.9 from GameSpot is hardly enough to put it on this list), Hummer Badlands (all reviews over 4.0, hardly notable enough for this list), and so on. This list is full of games that though they may stink, have no business at all on this list -- and I believe that. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fine then , I wish you best luck. L-Zwei (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- if I haven't put back up the format within, say a week, it might be best to revert back to what we had before -- I'll do my best though to meet Jedi's standards before anyone has to do that again. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Nomader, you are a diplomatic genius! This way you can actually work on it while still letting the article be in useful condition. i'll be sure to check your user page every now and then to see how you're doing, and i anticipate a quick and reasonable end to all this madness, thank you, and May the Force be with you. I am a jedi (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the spirit of compromise, i suggest that the games that are simply controversial, such as columbine, be moved to a different page, like List of Controversial Video Games. May the Force be with you. I am a jedi (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, if Nomader work on his subpage, he shouldn't worry about request for protection this one. I decide to distance myself from this list for now, but Jedi, if you not accept new format, at least remove some unworthy entries instead of blindly revert. L-Zwei (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would gladly work on removing a few if link would stop reverting it even though i keep telling him to stop and let Nomader work on it so that it pleases both parties. May the Force be with you, L-Zwei. I am a jedi (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying that it cannot be worked on with this version? Editors should NOT be encouraged to have a bad article, and that's what this article is - a bad article, at least in your version. The one that you're fighting against is properly formatted, completely sourced, and is not excessive. YOUR version often has no sources, is poorly formatted, is excessive, has many games on it that don't even begin to qualify for "being notable for negative reception" (I've never once heard someone comment on Aqua Teen Hunger Force's game and open it with any statement that would imply that its badness is one of the most notable aspects of the game, for instance). The only argument you've ever provided is "the article would be too short". Being a stub has never and will never be a criteria for deletion. Being completely unsourced and filled with POV at the same time, the #1. reason it went to the AfD every time, IS. Arguably, the article only survived simply because of the editors caring more than the people who want it deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that what you are doing is far too drastic, and what editor in their right mind would deliberatly turn a good article like this into a stub? I say to stop trying to ruin the page for everyone and start actually helpping out with the situation. It's editors like you that ruin the good name of wikipedia, I say you leave the article be, and i'll remove some of the ones that weren't too awfully recieved. Also, unless you count reviews from professional critics as bias, there is NO POV in this article, anywhere, period. Besides, Nomader is working on a long, yet fully sourced version right here. So cool your jets for about a week, and i'm sure that he'll come through with a perfect solution to fit both our needs. L-Zwei was alright with waiting a little, why can't you be? P.S. If we keep fighting about this, they're gonna HAVE TO put up a protection request, something that must be avoided at all costs. I am a jedi (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• How about show your effort to improve this list by remove some not worthy entries NOW instead of revert back everything? It doesn't hurt to take a step back first. L-Zwei (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jedi, I'm not going to lie here, but I agree with Zwei and Link on this debate. We have three ways of doing things here -- first, we can continue to edit the version in my userspace while keeping up the sub-par article... and this solution is a very ugly one. I'd much rather have all of the editors working on the list I've created so far in the article and adding to it instead of only myself working on the list I've created while everyone else adding to a version which may very well be deleted in a week.

Second, we can put up the version I've been working on (as is being reverted back and forth). This would save me trouble and effort by allowing other editors to work on it instead of just a small group, and I think it should be the way to go.

Third, we can continue to use the version that's currently up, provided users such as yourself, Jedi, remove un-sourced games, ludicrously listed games (as mentioned both above and below), and make an overall large effort to clean up the article. I think it would be best for all the editors though if we just put up the new version and get working on making it as good quality as possible. No sense in sitting around editing a version which won't be here in a week. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold the phone, Nomader, what do you mean, "won't be here in a week"? I've seen articles with fewer sources than this, and they weren't deleted, someone merely asked that they be sourced. What's wrong with staying the course, that way, we'll have a reasonable length, yet fully sourced article? I was depending on you, Nomader, and if link would just stop reverting and wait until you're done, i'm sure you'll have something that will please both parties. I know you'll do the right thing, Nomader, so in advance, May the Force be with you. I am a jedi (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I bet they all have been nominated for deletion, with the primary problem with all of them being bad sources and no criteria for inclusion (at least none that is being acknowledged at all). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And the only reason Nomader ever suggested what you want was because you refused to stop edit warring, despite the fact that we have Wikipedia policy saying that we are allowed to remove content that, if not sourced and likely to be disputed, CAN BE REMOVED. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Problem is, this is in worst list category and source is a must. Common Wikipedian (non-deletionist) may lets interesting but poorly-source article slip since it do no harm. But here, this list can damage games's reputation and need carefully monitoring. L-Zwei (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bit of inclusion criteria. I suggest that while some worst <<whatever-number>> games list can use as source, it should be limited to the "worst 3". L-Zwei (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)