Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Limbo of the Lost?

I'm thinking Limbo of the Lost deserves a spot on this list, as pretty much all of its notability comes from the fact that it copy/pasted from numerous other games (see the article for references/sources on that). While it does not appear to have any "official" rating that I can find (metacritic is waiting on one more critic rating by the looks of it, but 2 of the 3 so far were 0 and the third was 27 [1]), I think the coverage it got simply by plagiarising other games makes it notable enough to be included. However, in the interest of not getting instantly reverted, I'm asking here first for thoughts before I (or someone else) add a section to the article. --Skizzerz (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How to add more games, easily

Just look through the lists already used for the others. Also, sort the 1990s and 2000s alphabetically. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Call of Juarez: The Cartel

Call of Juarez: The Cartel was singled out as lazy design by Extra Credits' James Portnow and Daniel Floyd. The game's wikipedia page already has it noting that they said it might be the most racist game they've ever played. "The entire game is about the evils of minorities", "There is an achievement for killing black people", "Techland... commits the worse crime a designer can - willfully misinforming your audience." - [2]

Admitably that this alone doesn't make it notable for negative reception, but the errors upon errors upon completely misleading information stack up, and the piece was made with the input with Rob Rath who'd researched and written about the Mexican drug war within a gaming contexts before ([3], [4]). 109.78.250.26 (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

few suggests to add

I thought the previous Leisure Suit Larry, Magna Cum Laude, also got bad reviews. Some magazines wouldn't even review the next because this was already so bad. Mobygames.com has two times 3/10, one time 3.5/10, though the best is 9.2/10, but this one was critisized by Al Lowe too.
And "adventure" game Erotica Island has ratings 14/100 & 2/100 at mobygames.com.
Phantasmagoria from 1995 on the other hand, is not a game according to some reviewers. MikroBitti has a score of 30/100 http://www.mbnet.fi/pelihalli/pelit/lukija-arvostelut.asp?peli=1047. Mobygames.com has gathered quite good reviews, from around 3/5 to 4.5/5.
At least Erotica Island could be suitable to add. 82.141.74.224 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sonic 06 and Duke Nukeum Forever

What about adding Sonic 06 and Duke Nukeum to the list? The games are UNIVERSALLY panned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.238.112.205 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sonic 06 was achully on the list earlier. why it was removed i don't know...

But DNF wasn't "UNIVERSALLY" Panned. it it was called okay by soe, good by some, adn pretty gtreat by some. bottom line: there's games that got worse reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.172.21 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Chiller

I think Chiller may qualify for this list. The reference articles say that Exidy had trouble getting people to put the units in their establishments and soon went out of business. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll have to see what I can dig up about this one.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

How to add some more titles to this article (again, repeating myself)

Just use the lists that are already in the references! And the lowest rankings on he aggregate sites as well, see what titles are repeating often (espiecally high in the lists), insert these titles into the article, that's all. Any experienced editor might do it.

I already wrote it in "How to add more games, easily", but maybe I wasn't specific enough about it. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And yes, Sonic 2006 is one of these games. But so is Extreme Paintbrawl etc. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think our objective with this article is to add as many games as possible. Also, instead of instructing other people on how to edit the article, why not just make the edits yourself?--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Because this is talk page, and most of the talk here is discussing what should be added next. So instead of your attempts at original research, just USE THE SOURCES that you have so neatly listed on in this very article. Ta-dam!

So, instead of wondering about Chiller, which is not on the lists and is more of a commercial failure (and even its article has only 1 reliable source, otherwise citing "Modern gamers" of a website named ironicconsumer.com)...

...you just add Extreme Paintbrawl (1998) because it's actually still remembered as the 4th worst video game of all time according to PC Gamer in 2010 in addition to appearing in several others of the worst-games lists (UGO's 2011 for example), and also got flooring reviews at the time (so much its whole Wikipedia article content is the chapter titled "Criticism", which of course should have been Reception).

So how many times I have to repeat it, and what kind of detail I need to get into to explain this for you? And before you ask: no, the notably-negative reception of Sonic 2006 is not only from the usual suspects (autistic Sonic fans) being buttdevastated, the game is actually on the lists (like this above by UGO, for example). That's in addition to very poor reviews.

That is all. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction to the info about PCGamer's Worst PC games of all time

The list of PGamer's worst PC games of all time were in no order at all. Richard Cobbett said in the comments, "They're not really in much of an order." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.183.226 (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bomberman Act Zero (Xbox 360) and Mario Hotel (CD-i)

I suggest to add Bomberman Act Zero. It has a score of 34 in Metacritic and 33.97% in Gamerankings, it actually has a lower score than Sonic 2006 (which is currently on the list) and like that game, belongs to a well known franchise. Also, the infamous Mario Hotel fron CD-i was before on the list, but somehow it was removed. Does it deserve to be in the article? --Apolo13 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Amy

Destructoid gave the game a 1.5 and called it "one of the worst games ever made". http://www.destructoid.com/review-amy-219559.phtml

IGN gave it a 2.0 and said that, "a supremely muddled mess of controller-throwing frustration and piss-poor game design choices -- makes Amy not only one of the worst downloadable games I've ever played, but easily the worst game I've played in recent memory, period." http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/121/1216440p1.html

Game Informer gave it a 3.0 and said, "As a downloadable title, I wasn’t expecting Amy to measure up against the triple-A juggernauts of the survival horror genre. However, I was expecting a game that was at least playable and contained some kind of entertainment. Make no mistake: Whether Amy is delivered to you via download, retail SKU, direct brain wave, or retinal implant, it is terrible and should be avoided."

Has a 25 score on Metacritic for the Xbox 360, and a 32 score on PS3. http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/amy http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/amy

Is this notable enough? SuperDopeBass (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is for games that are notable because of negative reception, not games that have received very negative reviews. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I am too fast on this one, because it was released like two months ago. Heh, sorry, perhaps it will become notable later on... SuperDopeBass (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Plumbers Don't Wear Ties for 3DO?

This "game" is really the worst ever, because it is watching a slideshow with primitive quality voice acting, and 1 FMV scene only in the beginning! No effort was made! Please include it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.109.14 (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems with putting Plumbers Don't Wear Ties in this article:

1.Just being a really bad game isn't enough reason to be included in the article. There are thousands of incredibly awful games out there; listing them all would be pointless. This article is meant to cover games that are *notable for the negative reception they received*.

2.Plumbers Don't Wear Ties is not a video game. If you read up on the 3DO, it was meant to be a comprehensive audio-visual system, not just a gaming console. In other words, not everything released for the 3DO is a video game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're getting at about saying the 3DO being more than just a gaming console, but you have to remember that the CD-I was also supposed to be the same idea. Considering that we have a game that's on the CD-I on this list, then games for the 3DO, including this one, should also be included.--Adam the silly (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The badness of the PC version of Plumbers Don't Wear Ties was a running joke in PC Gamer for most of the '90s. I'd consider that notable negative reception. 82.132.139.34 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you've missed the most important part of that running joke: There is no PC version of Plumbers Don't Wear Ties. It's sort of like Stan Lee's quotes from Irving Forbush, only instead of made-up quotes from a made-up person, you've got made-up bad qualities from a made-up video game. Go ahead and check out places like GameFAQs, IGN.com, and Allgame; Plumbers Don't Wear Ties was only for the 3DO.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Daikatana?

Surely Daikatana should be on this list? It was the worse game I ever played, being bugged beyond oblivion. 92.239.203.159 (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that bad. There are patches to fix the bugs [5], and a trick to get rid of the helpless sidekicks (start a cooperative multiplayer game, but play alone). With those, it is pretty decent. --Stormwatch (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Daikatana was panned by critics due to the excessive marketing hype. 2fort5r (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget "John Romero's about to make you his b****." 99.19.95.52 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether the game was actually good or bad is beside the point. Daikatana is clearly that which defines this list: notable for its negative reception. If someone would find the time to include this in the article the world would be a slightly better place. Skrofler (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Mass Effect 3""

There seems to be mention of "Mass Effect 3""[sic], but no reasons or explanations. (Not much of a gamer, but noticed it 'sticking out', possibly unverified?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.225.246.86 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 might actually be worth a mention. I'm not sure on the actual rating of the game, but the ending of the game was talk of the gaming community for a couple of weeks because it bought a sour ending to a heavily story based game. I would guess the metacritic score would be high in itself as the rest of the game was supposed to be good, but I guess the key question is to whether or not the ending is enough to warrant it for notable negative receptions (although in this case from the consumer and not the reveiwers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.194.29 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How about Friday the 13th (video game)? 187.114.231.184 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor

I don't understand why Rock Revolution and MindJack are on this list. They aren't exactly notable, they've just received an excessive amount of poor reviews. MindJack, in question, sort of came and went, while many people looked forward to Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor. It's also far more notable because it people looked forward to it as being the hardcore game that would redeem the Microsoft Kinect - after a history of lackluster to downright terrible titles. Sonic Free Riders may have been bad, but Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor was released at a time after people had forgave the Kinect's poorly-received launch library. People have even written articles outside of reviews where they state that the Kinect is broken just because of how unplayable they found Heavy Armor to be.

I believe this would be a reasonable edition since it is a far more notable game due to the smaller helping of Kinect titles as opposed to the entire Xbox 360's library. Not to mention the fact that it had severely disappointed those looking forward to it, and has ruined the Kinect in the eyes of even some of the more forgiving of journalists. Among these skeptics who blame not the game, but the Kinect itself, are Hamza Aziz from Destructoid and Angry Joe from his review of the game. Many reviewers didn't even finish the game because of how frustrated they became.

Please do consider this.

I don't understand why Rock Revolution and MindJack are on this list. -- because someone added them and no one else removed them? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed both. Mid-30s on Metacritic is poor, but not egregious and certainly not relative to most games on this list (which average one point out of ten in most reviews). Furthermore, none of the reliable sources cited for them establish them as being notabl for their lack of quality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

List of video games notable for positive reception

I was just wondering whether or not it would be a good idea to start an article about video games that are widely thought of as the greatest ever; for example: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, SoulCalibur, Super Mario Galaxy, Grand Theft Auto IV, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. LarsJanZeeuwRules (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See "Best Games Ever?" section above.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't even need a "list of video games notable for positive reception" because if we did have this page, then a bunch of fanboys would come onto Wikipedia and start arguing about which game is best. Likely Ally (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To Likely Ally; Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge, and Wikipedia has plenty of measures to take, should fanboy edit warring or talk page blow-ups occur on such a page, if created. I hardly think that your personal fears or objections are good enough reason not to create a "good games" page. Besides, this page obviously needs more work, and no article is ever truly complete, so why not give it a shot? jacob.husted 08:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever?

Has this been considered at all? I was genuinely surprised it wasn't here.66.31.87.187 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Simpsons: Skateboarding, Tony Hawk disaster worthy here or not?

I don't see what's stopping it. Disagree? Well look at this: 1. It has abysmal music 2. You can't pull of many trick's in the game. 3. It's Electronic Arts' most atrocious game since Bionicle: The Game 4. The Characters look like there made from chunky,dried-up, Play-doh 5. Kent Brockman, who announces all the many few tricks you pull off, get's annoying fast. 6. Game Informer game the game a 1 out of 10 7. The controls feel like Atari Jaguar parasite: Club Drive 8. Kevin Murphy of GameSpy wrote: "The Simpsons Skateboarding should be a case study in bad game design. I've played lots of bad games in my life, folks, but Simpsons Skateboarding has got to be one of the absolute worst. It's among the worst of all The Simpsons games, which is no small feat in and of itself, especially considering that distinction puts it among Bart's Nightmare and The Simpsons Wrestling. There's so much that this game gets wrong I'm amazed that Sony allowed it to be released in the first place." 9. Eurogamer gave this a well-deserved 2/10 10. Only redeeming point is that the levels are big, but nevertheless.

I mean seriously, EA must have been evil when they made this ugly,atrocious, abominable,mess. I, for one, is surprised how it made past Sony. Let's be grateful for one thing: EA apologized in 2007 with, The Simpsons game. Now are convinced or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.180.49 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This list hit the bottom, once again.

And this is the worst. New contributors write entry with short sentences, not even bother to make it into paragraph nor cite the source. A bad, but not too terrible keep creep in. And it look like nobody has energy to keep the list in good shape like it was.

Guess it's time to put this list to rest. L-Zwei (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

WarZ?

With it's unceremonious removal from Steam and the following failure to refund customers who bought it, WarZ is quickly slipping into "Negative reception" heaven.

With sites like http://warzscam.tumblr.com/ and the feedback on steam's forums. People getting banned over asking for refunds. Imgur: http://imgur.com/3le1W Original: https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/413913_511156692252149_521720786_o.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusContagia (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it's on there now... after a brief edit war... PantherLeapord (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Drake of the 99 dragons" and "Amy".

Drake of the 99 Dragons and Amy (video game) are two games that has gotten highly negative reviews. just noting them just in case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.193.222 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but the big question here is whether these games are notable for the scores they got. Low scores are one thing, but reputation is another thing, and when these two things combine into a game, that's when it might be suitable on the list. --Sendator (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Amy I think should qualify, at least. Certainly more than Sonic '06. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Amy might not be the worst game of all time, but it is certainly considered by people who played to among the very worst of 2012. in fact, it hasen't gotten any positive critic-review on Metacritic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.193.10 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sonic 06?

would this be on the list here? this game nearly killed the sonic franchise, and nearly ruined sega reputation. so would this game be one of the worst games ever made? --99.252.69.26 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Sonic 06 is generally considered a bad game (I'm a sonic fan and I wouldn't buy it), but I've seen many people who claim to love the game. I just don't think it's bad enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.66.88 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

While I do somewhat agree with the person above me, I also have to disagree as well. These are games that are notable for negative reception. I think Sonic 06 would qualify here. Anyone disagree? Sendator (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree The IP above me has a point, I think it should go on the list because it is very notable. Although it didn't kill the sonic franchise.TJD2 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, you just prove that "notable" is subjective word. You "think" it is notable, and by pick few reviews with dramatic words, you can make it read like worst thing in the world. Yet the Metacritic score, unsubjective fact, only say it is just bad one, but not as much as you made it. L-Zwei (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is not called List of video games with bad metacritic scores. The game's reception section is well-sourced, and shows that the game is in fact notable for having a negative reception. If a game has a low metacritic score that would warrant mentioning, but metacritic scores are not the criteria for this article, and there is no bright-line "only scores lower than 37.4% belongs on this list"; the article uses reliable sources. Looking at some of the other games in this list, the metacritic score for this game isn't much better than these other games; MindJack most certainly belongs on this list, for example, yet has around the same metacritic score. - SudoGhost 04:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: L-Zwei; Right, so what did I do wrong? Metacritic is only a fraction of opinions and I was taking opinions from well known game reviewing websites. Whether Sonic 06 qualifies? I don't know. But I put it down there because a couple of the guys wanted to and I agreed. Look, if there are more contradicting arguments about Sonic 06, should get a third opinion or something? Hope I'm not being rude. Sendator (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"but metacritic scores are not the criteria for this article" and what is criteria then? Suddenly I have a dejavu of old day, when medicore Devil May Cry 2 was on this list. Except back then, people actually drafting proper criteria for inclusion instead of rely on "I think this is notable"... Count yourselves win, I'm going to unwatch this. L-Zwei (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

When a game is widely talked about because of how bad it is then it should be included on here. Use some common sense at least; the article is not "Games with a bad revew score" or "Games that have a below-average but not terrible review score"; this article is about games that are widely talked about BECAUSE they are bad and BECAUSE more than a few people think so. PantherLeapord (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to have second thoughts about Sonic 06. Sure people say it's bad, but like TJD2 said, it didn't kill the Sonic franchise. There are also people who like the game and the music is praised too. Sendator (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's NOTABLE for negative reception, but isn't one of the worst games or has the worst score. Some elements of the game may be praised but that doesn't negate it's notability in that aspect. I think it should stay for this reason; however more sources may be needed to back this up.TJD2 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly

I had only recently discovered that this game was critically panned. Even though I liked it when I was younger, I can see why it recieved these ratings. It's story is bland, some recurring characters only appear once, there's only one boss fight and no major ending, and of course, numerous glitches and long loading times. I may like this game, but I also liked the Survior game and I added that onto the entry. Should this game be on here too? --Adam the silly (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move February 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

List of video games notable for negative reception → List of video games considered the worst – A proposed solution to the potential OR issues with this article was to move it to that title. I actually support the idea, also because its more in line with its close country cousin, List of films considered the worst. Relisted PantherLeapord (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)--Relisted. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC) ViperSnake151  Talk  23:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• (undecided) Neutral - My kneejerk reaction was to think "Whoa, the proposed title sounds very loaded, as opposed to the more factual current title"; however, reading over the article and similar lists, I must say I am decidedly.... undecided. The list isn't currently about "games considered the worst", but about games that have received exceptionally negative reception, which seems more in line with the current title than with the proposed one. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep at current title - I see no problem with the current title. The only reason that I can see for this proposed move is an excuse to remove a game that should be on this list; Sonic '06. PantherLeapord (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Either move it or delete it like we did List of video games notable for positive reception. This article is a fucking joke, it's scope is so ridiculously wide - the criteria for inclusion is essentially - is there an editor that really dislikes a game with less than 50 metascore? This list actually used to contain only games considered the worst ever, but it got bastardised to "negative reception" to accomodate various editors pet hates. The argument I made in 2007 still stands. - hahnchen 14:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep at current title and cleanup - 'Considered the worst' is different from being 'notable for negative reception' Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose moving the article. The requested move target is too vague to be useful, and raises too many questions: considered by whom? what is meant by "worst"? Article titles should be concise and simple, and ideally shouldn't raise questions to what is meant by the title, what is covered in the article should be clear, and changing the article's title in this manner would be taking a step backwards in that regard. "Worst" is also an extremely subjective thing whereas "negative reception" can be shown; if articles should not contain such weasel words, article titles most certainly should not. - SudoGhost 17:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How is a list specifically targeted towards games that have been specifically called the worst ever be more vague than a game being notable for their negative reception? The way I see it is a reliable source either did or did not call a game the worst ever but whether or not a game negative reception is notable would be up for much more debate since it could be questioned regarding how bad the reception is or whether or not the bad reception in question can be called notable. I also don't see how WP:WEASEL if we are specifically citing a source that has called game X the worst ever made.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Because worst is too subjective a term, and changes the scope of the article; what is "worst"? What is "considered"? Why would that be a better metric than negative reception, since "worst" is less easily defined and more open to editorializing? The suggested title creates too many problems; it suggests that editors may decide for themselves whether an article is "worst" or not, and could potentially create an issue where editors would deign to remove or add entries based on their own interpretation of "worst". The current title does not have that issue, and is clear in its scope without even glancing at the article. There is no reason to move backwards and create problems that do not exist, especially for the reason given; it would create more WP:OR problems, not less. - SudoGhost 14:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree since worst is a much more specific term than negative reception and due to Wikipedia's rules on sourcing a soured would specifically need to call a game the worst ever before it can be added. This would also protect it from any biased removal. Also, while it is true that someone may try to use original research to alter entries our policy against that can easily be used to counter that. I also don't see original research as being worse under the proposed title since, at least in my opinion, it is would be easier to see if a source that has been added or removed special specifically said that game x was the worst ever instead of supporting that a game is notable for its reception. I truth I believe that original research would be worse under th. Current title.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, if a criteria were set so that games are only included when reliable sources have described them as being the worst game of all time would be a lot more narrower than this disgraceful smorgasbord. "Notable for negative reception" is completely meaningless, this list is 100% editorializing, there is no definition what notable for negative reception means. Would you include SimCity (2013 video game) because of DRM launch issues? What about this entire section of Bioshock? Or every game ever implicated in video game violence? The criteria for "notable for negative reception" just means that a determined editor doesn't like the game. Clear in scope? Just look at the article, it's a sham. - hahnchen 21:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Once it is all said and done SimCity (2013 video game) probably WILL make this list due to being almost exclusively known and talked about due to it's negative reception due to the launch issues. However Bioshock_(video_game) will never be on the list because the positive talk about the game far outweighs the negative talk of it! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So even though there's an entire section in the Bioshock article about it's negative reception, it won't make the list because more than 50% of the reception is positive? That's the criteria? The criteria here is completely arbitrary, it's exactly what I stated in my !vote above - the criteria is essentially - "is there an editor that really dislikes a game with less than 50 metascore?" Here's a featured article on some negative reception - ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - hahnchen 15:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

there is such a section on many articles of games that do not feature here. Just because a game has controversy around it does not mean it has to be on this list. However if a game is known MAINLY because of it's controversial aspects and negative elements such as poor gameplay, a bad story, poor execution of a concept and so on then it will be on this list PantherLeapord (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, plenty of games are notable for their negative reception - yet it's not on here, because there's no strict criteria other than some editor not liking it enough. The GTA series for example is probably known best for its negative reception in the wider press. Your own definition of what "notable for negative reception" is your own, it's not defined by the title, there is no objective criteria. - hahnchen 21:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, per SudoGhost's arguments. Also, the proposed title sounds less encyclopedic, if that means anything. --Soetermans. T / C 13:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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