Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Taboo: The Sixth Sense

look at this:

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.6.172.57 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Count Duckula 2

Your opinions on possibly adding "Count Duckula 2" (1992, Alternative Software, ZX Spectrum)? [2]; Your Sinclair awarded it 9%, Amstrad Action gave 3%, and most importantly, it was voted the "Number One Worst Speccy Game Of All Time" by the YS's readers (issue 93) Marasmusine (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Resident Evil Survivor

Has anyone ever played this game, it may be hard to get sources for this, but this game is teh abomination of teh series. Its a FPS which from what i have seen can load but has no save points.

Too many >4.0/10 reviews. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much focus on reviews?

That is, with Daikatana for example, we see no reviews lower than 37, but it is very famous for its negative reception - in fact, probably more well-known for it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• If you can cited non-review reception (I can't figure out how, really), go ahead and try to add it. L-Zwei (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ctrl-Alt-Del has contributed to Daikatana's infamy as a crappy game; I haven't played it and I know how bad it is. Whether it's *really* a bad game, neither I nor wikipedia can say, but it is *notable* for this. 74.10.227.130 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is, as ever, difficult to decide on what deserves a place on the list. There are countless games that get awful reviews, but whether that actually makes them particularly notable is arguable. Will we still remember the likes of Deal or No Deal or Chicken Shoot in 30 years' time like we remember the first two on the list, E.T. and Pac Man? Doubtful, because E.T. and Pac Man really are notable for their negative reception, not just for being bad games. Most crap games are just... crap games. Doesn't mean they're notable, it just means they're crap. Maybe if something causes a STIR because it's bad, then it should be included, and if not it should be left off. But if we don't decide on some kind of concrete inclusion criteria we'll just end up with an ever-expanding list of more and more games that most people have never even heard of... Miremare 21:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I say we go through the list and decide on each and every entry, on the criteria of whether they're well-known for their badness. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

However, just to make sure I don't forget, I suggest Pong Toss! Frat Party Games be included, as it was very poorly received and not only that, received controversy from several groups and people, which could be qualified as negative reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On Dragon Ball Z: Ultimate Battle 22...

I think original release date is worth to add. It's released in JP since 1995 while NA released in 2003 that's EIGHT years gap and self-explan why it suck. Consider that we (un)cite only NA review, it should be nice information especially since we don't have ANY JP review (though I remember it was consider as fine game back then). L-Zwei (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality titles have had a large gap in their Japanese and English releases. This isn't really relevant. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What about?

Simpsons Wrestling and CLayfighter 63 1/3 were universally panned ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.245.200 (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pac Man

I removed the following:

1981

Pac-Man (Atari 2600)

(Atari 2600)

• Listed as #5 worst game of all time by PC World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, and Michael Dolan, editor of FHM magazine.
• The game is commonly cited as one of the main causes of the video game crash of 1983.
• The quality of the game was highly criticized. Many gamers lost loyalty to Atari and returned Pac-Man to stores.
• Upon realizing that the 1981 holiday season was just around the corner, Atari based the marketed game on an unfinished prototype shown by Tod Frye, one of Atari's leading programmers.

as it seems to be a copy of the ET-paragraph, with "Pac Man" replacing every instance of "ET". What the Fuck? 84.129.154.94 (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Haze, Shellshock 2 and Turning Point

Could Haze be added? it was one of the most hyped games of 2008, yet turned out to be one of the most critically panned. Turning Point was heavily panned as well, and Shellshock got a very poor review from PSM3, but I don't know about other reviews. Discoh8er (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Haze got some good reviews so that might prevent that from being listed. Turning Point however got no good reviews at all, so I think it deserves a place on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.12.105 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Google "Turning Point: Fall Of Liberty" and you should have no problem finding sources to back up that claim

Deal or No Deal?

It should be called, "What's the deal with this fucking game?" [3] 72.76.28.224 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• we don't cite YouTube. L-Zwei (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I put it here and not the actual page... 72.76.28.224 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalin vs martians

boomtown.net is calling the game a contender for the worst game of all time http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=17907 other reviews seem to agree with this http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/stalinvsmartians and they are right. It is definitely the worst real-time strategy game ever made. I really think it should be added to the list of games in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.242.51 (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Godzilla Unleashed: Double Smash for Nintendo DS

One of the worse games I have ever played in my entire life. Has a 28.39% at Gamerankings.VatoFirme (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid a low rank and your personal opinion are not sufficient. Sources must be found that convey that the game is well known for it's negative reception. -Verdatum (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised at the lack of NES games in this article.

...besides Action 52 (which wasn't a Nintendo release). Dragon's Lair springs to mind as receiving seriously negative reviews. 66.169.86.129 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dragon's Lair is actually remembered rather positively according to all the sources I've read. Or is it just the NES version that was bad? Savager (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The console versions are dreadful. They took the arcade version, which was basically a choose your own adventure cartoon, and turned it into a creeping slow sidescroller. The NES port is particularly painful because it can take hours just to master all the little steps needed to get past the first scene. Gamespot gives it a 4.3, but I think some of the people reviewing it aren't aware there's a difference between the NES version and the arcade. Angry Video Game Nerd has a great review of the pain that is NES Dragon's Lair. 67.233.174.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Just FYI, there actually are console versions of Dragon's Lair which are identical to the arcade version. The 3DO and Jaguar CD versions are two examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin IIIa (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Games like Godzilla and Taboo should be in there for sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.76.242 (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Faces of Evil

I think we should put it up, as the other 2 zelda "Black Sheep" games are up there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.207.253 (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Animal Soccer World

Check out Animal Soccer World. Despite the title, there's no soccer: it's just a shoddy puzzle game, with incredibly lousy animated cutscenes and equally bad voice acting. A Destructoid reviewer calls it the worst game ever.[4] Worth mention here? --Stormwatch (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 2006

If anyone has played this game you would already know about how horrible this game is and if not let me fill you in The camera angle can get you killed you the controls are awful and don't get me started on the loading screens. So how come this game isn't on the list? Mr nutt (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply because that's your opinion of the game. This list is for games which have been reviewed by professional game reviewers and have been given extremely sub-par reviews. SONIC the Hedgehog has been given reviews with scores which average about 40%, while most other games here are far worse than that.

Simply put, this game may be bad (I've never played it), but the games in this list have bad points which FAR outweigh the positives. SuperSonic (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the decision has already been made. I didn't spot it on the list. Sorry, I guess my comment should be disregarded. SuperSonic (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's true Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 has an average metascore of 46%, which is indeed higher than many other games excluded from this list. However, I would argue there is an inherent positive bias built into that composite score due to the goodwill of certain reviewers for the series as a whole. Sonic 2006 benefits from being part of a major franchise with millions of fans who have enjoyed the series since its 1991 debut. It isn't a large leap to assume the sentiments of that fanbase may also be shared by some of the critics whose perceptions contribute to the metascore. Game Informer's review sums up this dichotomy perfectly: "In the end, Sonic nuts will love it. Everyone else should stay away." By contrast, other games included on this list, such as Big Rigs, do not belong to beloved franchises and cannot claim the same benefit. The goal of Wikipedia is to present facts without bias. However, by using these reviews and metascores as our only yard stick to determine whether or not a game should be included, we simply pass on other people's bias as fact. There are a lot of good reasons to put Sonic 2006 on this list. No other game in recent memory with as large a budget or belonging to as famous and historic a franchise has been so widely decried. Therefore, I recommend it be re-added.68.202.226.157 (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Let me add that if this list isn't about raw scores; it's about notability. Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 was a high profile release, whereas the overwhelming majority of games with lower scores were not. It was a game that people expected a lot from and ended up dealing a gaping wound to a once proud gaming franchise. That's a lot more notable than a handful of numbers.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Survivor

Got Game Revolution's "worst game ever" award; they gave it a F-, which they've never given out before. See the (rather funny) review here [5]

GameFAQs [6] Metacritic [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savager (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

List needs cutting

I think this list is going to need some serious cutting. A recent spat of anonymous ip edits has turned it in to a list of games that recieved negative reviews vs. a list of games *notable* for their negative receptions. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that one of the problems is we have a set standard, and we really have to look at it in a case-by-case basis. A game can get only a 10 on Metacritic, but does that mean it's notable for it? On the other hand, just because a game scores over 50% doesn't mean it's not notable for its negative reception. For example, Sonic 2006 was in the 40's - above our "standard" - but it doesn't change the fact that it was pretty well-known for being quite possibly the worst original Sonic title ever made. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point though and what I was getting at - games that are well-known for being a "worst game" demonstrate that notoriety beyond simple bad rankings, which should be the reason for them being listed here. Bad rankings alone should not be used as a standard. E.T. comes to mind as another example in regards to your Sonic 2006. Most of what I'm seeing added are just games that have simply gotten bad reviews - no demonstration of any sort of notoriety in regards to the bad reviews. The standard for this list needs to be games that have demonstrated lasting notoriety in the industry for being a bad game. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose removing the following: The Great Space Race, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, China Warrior, J.J. and Jeff, Action 52, Count Duckula 2, Samurai Ghost, White Men Can't Jump, Sonic Labyrinth, Catfight, Spawn: The Eternal, Extreme Paintball, Spirit of Speed, 1937, Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears, Rugrats: Totally Angelica, The PowerPuff Girls: Chemical X-Traction, Gravity Games Bike: Street Vert Dirt, Drake of the 99 Dragons, Gods and Generals, MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch, Disney's Party, Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat, Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat (GBA Version), Dr. Seuss: Green Eggs and Ham, Yu Yu Hakusho: Spirit Detective, Barbie Horse Adventures: Wild Horse Rescue, Elf Bowling 1 & 2, American McGee presents: Bad Day L.A., Terrawars: New York Invasion, Anubis II, Chicken Shoot, Deal or No Deal, Ninjabread Man, Zoey 101, Jumper: Griffin's Story, SPOGS Racing, Action Girlz Racing, Rig Racer 2, Metal Angel, Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust, Stalin vs. Martians, Sonic and the Black Knight, Dragonball Evolution. And Baby Shaker looks like a great example, just needs sources.

And a couple ones I think we should add: Imagine (series), Wii Music (if we can find enough sources to show the dismay of it; I've definitely read more than enough stories that depict it as tremendously mediocre for what it offers), and we may even want to delve into more controversial ideas, like including Wind Waker. While it was ultimately greatly received, the cel-shading used was probably one of the worst things in Zelda history according to many fans and many critics. While I'd hate to say Wind Waker was notable for it, there were a ton of stories about all the negative reception to the visual style. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree; from the ones I looked at, most of the recent IP additions can/should be removed. I was mostly just waiting for the editor to get bored and move on before cleaning it up. I think another thing that could make this easier is to clarify the inclusion criteria for this list as defined in the lead section. -Verdatum (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just remove bunch of games without citation. Keep in mind that citation is first criteria for controversial list like this. L-Zwei (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have an idea; what if we focus on specific TYPES of things that may cause games to have negative reception, mentioning specific examples? Quality would be one category (E.T. etc.), while the others would involve the content of the game, such as discussing examples of drastic changes in a series (Wind Waker), controversy (the iPhone game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Resistance, etc.), bugs (can't think of any notable examples off-hand), significant quality drops in a series (Sonic 2006), rehashing (Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, etc.). I think we focus all too much on reviews and less on reception. While there has never really been a bad Guitar Hero, even Aerosmith, negative reception for the series is pretty powerful - Hell, the September NPD blames the Guitar Hero/Rock Band series' decline in sales for a 50% drop in sales year-to-year. A game included in this list shouldn't have to be bad, it just needs to have a significant negative reception to it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Worst in series" is a bad criterion, because there for every series there is a "worst" game. I realize the intent of the list is games that are notoriously bad, maybe even legendarily bad, but I'm not sure how to qualify that beyond a simple adjective like that. Also, a quick note of the existence of List of commercial failures in video gaming and List of controversial video games. Nifboy (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A list can overlap. Fact of the matter is that a game that fits better on the controversial games list is more notable for its negative reception than Elf Bowling 1 & 2. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all this - the list seems to have become a (very slanted toward post 2000) dumping ground for a lot of obscure games that are barely notable for anything. I would say everything pre-2000 probably deserves to be there, but the rest needs to be looked at. I'm all for including the likes of Daikatana and Sonic 2006, though we have to be wary of straying too far into the territory of the list of controversial video games. For example, which one would Cannon Fodder (video game) be included on? Front page newspaper headlines saying "don't buy this game" is certainly negative reception, but it can be described as a controversy too. They can overlap, sure, but it should be kept to a minimum. Miremare 09:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Action 52 shouldn't be removed. It's quite notorious. (And oddly enough, I was just talking about it in a chat last night...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern bombs?

How about Tony Hawk Ride? Daikatana? What other games have had lots of hype, but were basically broken when released? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

modern or old, items are added to the list as sources are uncovered. If you think those titles belong, we'll need sources that ideally declare the game "notable for its negative reception" or alternatively, sources that themselves provide authoritative verifiable negative reception. -Verdatum (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly say that there are many sources for Tony Hawk Ride; just the mere virtue of only allowing the first day reviews to come from a three hour promotional event for the game was hugely unpopular, particularly with many of the reviewers. -The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Custer's Revenge

I want to apologize for an error. In my November 12 edit, I removed the note that the Native American woman's name is Revenge, commenting that it is false. In fact, I didn't really know whether it was false or not. Because (1)I've read a few articles on Custer's Revenge and have never heard anything about the woman having a name, (2)it doesn't make much sense for the developers to give her a name, and (3)the game's title is obviously referring to the rape as Custer's "revenge" against the Native Americans who killed him, I assumed the editor was making a joke.

I now learn that my assumption was wrong. I just stumbled on a photo of the back of the box for Custer's Revenge, and what do you know - the summary refers to the woman as Revenge.

I'm not reverting my edit, because I think noting the woman's name implies that her naming has something to do with the game's negative reception. But just for the record, if anyone cares, her name IS Revenge. And I apologize if I insulted the editor with my comments when I deleted that bit.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Shaq Fu

Does Shaq Fu really belong on this list? All we've got for negative reception to it is ScrewAttack's Top Ten and a website on destroying copies of Shaq Fu, neither of which came out less than two decades after the game's release, and both of which are more than a little tongue-in-cheek. Was there any criticism of Shaq Fu from serious publications around the date of release? Becoming the object of internet jokes a quarter century after release hardly seems like notable negative reception to me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So... No one cares one way or another about removing Shaq Fu from the list? That's pretty unbelievable, considering the on-and-off revert war over the website citation that has been going on for years and involved at least 8 editors. Still, there's nothing I can do if no one wants to voice their opinion. I'll wait another 48 hours to see if anyone cares; if still no one has spoken up by then, I'll go ahead and remove Shaq Fu myself.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue 100 of Nintendo Power lists Shaq Fu as #3 on a list of the worst games of all time. Is that better than what was present before? Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 04:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better... The problem is, though, to belong on this list, a game has to have had negative reception. After all, a game being called "bad" years after it was no longer being produced doesn't change the game's impact on the industry or video game culture. If every gaming publication listed Final Fantasy VII as one of the worst RPGs of all time, that wouldn't mean that FF7 had a negative impact on the popularity of RPGs. The Nintendo Power listing would definitely be a good bullet point to include under Shaq Fu if we have a section for the game, but I'm not sure it would be a good reason to add Shaq Fu. Unless, of course, the Nintendo Power listing mentions something like "Shaq Fu was greeted with critical jeers and low sales"... does it? I don't have that issue, so I can't check it for myself. Oh, and did Nintendo Power ever run a review of Shaq Fu?--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And not just negative "reception". It has to be notable for negative reception. I.E. be almost universally recognized as a bad game to the point of it even being noted in more current resources as having been badly received. That's why this list was paired down in the first place on grounds of notability. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The title of this article says video games notable for negative reception, not video games notable for negative reception at the time it came out. Shaq Fu has bad reception today, thus the statement "notable for negative reception" is true. And its bad reception is universal. Sure there might be a few people that think it's a good game, but its bad reception out weighs the good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.19.23.58 (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Before editing an article titled "List of video games notable for negative reception", it's a good idea to check that you at least have a vague idea of what the word "reception" means. "Reception two decades after arrival" is a contradiction in terms. And as noted above, a website starring the adventures of a heroic team of gamers out to destroy the world's supply of Video Game X and a mention of Video Game X on a comedy show hardly qualify as negative response to Video Game X. For all we know, the guys who posted those episodes actually like Shaq Fu.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin is correct. Reception has to do with how it was recieved, as in released. That's not saying it can't include a few later reviews (in the context of talking about how it was originally so poorly recieved), but the bulk still has to be reviews on it's actual reception at the time. E.T. is an example of a game poorly recieved, and is still notable to this day for that, and whose modern reviews listed here take that in to consideration and discuss it from that context. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oil Tycoon

I am not sure if this is noticeable enough but Oil Tycoon was at one point the worst videogame on 2 sites (definitely Gamespot and possibly 1up). If you search now, it is difficult to find the originall PC game seeing as there is now a flash game of the same name. ---Azemocram (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)