Talk:Video games notable for negative reception/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

What games should get nominated here, general guidelines.

To nominate a game for inclusion, it should meet certain criteria:

  • It must have been reviewed by at least 2 major gaming websites or reviewers considered authoritative, and the reviews must be linked from the game's entry.
  • Said reviews must have unanimously low scores in the 0%-25% range.
  • "Mediocre" games with scores in the 30%-60% range and/or having contradictory reviews have no place in this article, nor games with a single negative review pitted against average/normal reviews (e.g. if one reviewer says "it sucks", another says "it's an OK game" then it should probably not be included in this list).
  • Avoid using weasel words and personal considerations when describing a game.
  • Try to include actual quotations from review sources, and back-up with e.g. sales data or press response, if available.

Again, these are just guidelines formed from the editing experience of this article, and they should not be taken to the letter but rather followed using some common sense.

Title & contents change/addition proposal, please read

As it has been suggested many times, and it would potentially solve many controversies, why not name the article something like "List of controversial videogames", as the word "controversy" also appears right in the first lines of the article. And, since "controversial" does not mean "worst ever", it would greatly reduce any subjectivities the latter term implies.

About the contents: the article could include, like it actually does now, games that are simply "controversial" for a reason or another: e.g. clamorous flops, kitsch games, REALLY bad games, racist/controversial games, and adopt a labeling scheme which should be added before or after each game's description, briefly caractherizing the game according to its status as this can be traced down by e.g. autoritative review sources or "univeral consensus", and will help disambiguate between "worst ever" or merely "controversial" games.

Some examples of this:

  • E.T. could have the labels commercial flop, poorly made, considered worst ever.
  • Wonder Momo could have the labels unusual humour, usually ridiculed.
  • Ethnic Cleansing could have the labels racist contents, poorly made.
  • Daikatana: could be, quite safely, be labeled as clamorous flop, vaporware and mediocre or below expectations.

Please share your ideas and thoughts of this, this article can be made quite good! EpiVictor 11:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, good idea, and a bit less subjective, but then you could only include games that were controversial. You could create a seperate article for games that didn't fare well commercially or critically, but you could NOT do a page on the Wikipedia that ranks games based on people's opinions. This is not the place for it; there are many places elsewhere where you can post opinions and reviews - the Wikipedia is NOT for opinions and reviews. Any articles with 'considered' or 'poor' or 'mediocre', or anything that isn't simply a statement of verifiable fact. --DarrenBaker 17:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the nomintaed for deletion tags now be removed, as the discussion are finished? Romanista 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

An idea, we could name the title to "List of notoriously bad video games", and limit the list to commercial flops/butt of jokes/games repeatedly rated negatively by review sites. deadkid_dk 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, how many user 'votes' do people think is enough to warrant a nominated game's inclusion to the list? Savager 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopelessly POV

There is absolutely no way that this article should be on the WikiPedia in its current form. It is interminably POV, and needs serious work to make it NPOV. I think we should rename and revamp it so it is either 'List of commercially unsuccesful video games' and/or 'List of controversial video games'. This article is simply indefensible in its current form. --DarrenBaker 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying it's just "POV" is just too convenient, please provide some concrete arguments or counterexamples about specific games or listing criteria instead of a generic label. Also, you could very well expand the first section of the article, "Criticism of the concept" in a way similar to List_of_films_that_have_been_considered_the_worst_ever. It is a FACT that there are bad games out there, people dedicate them websites (even cults, if you prefer) and there is no acceptable "official" game reviewing method. Game reviewers themself are seldom considered "NPOV", but, as stated in the article, the do have the power to alter a game's fate. EpiVictor 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know that's rather vague, but the thing is that this idea is wholly subjective. The idea of 'bad'... Why is it bad? Sales? Gameplay? Content? Who decides? If a bunch of sources poorly review a video game, then that game should be in an article entitled 'List of poorly reviewed video games', along with the various sources. 'List of video games considered the worst ever' sounds like a list someone made in their notebook at the age of twelve. --DarrenBaker 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that subjectivity matter is indeed a thorn in the side for the article's credibility, yet I believe it can be turned into a very informative article if enough people cooperate. Maybe we should call for a peer review or settle some standards for citing sources and possibly playtesting. I currently do much of the article's maintenance myself and try to personally seek sources and review games in order to verify their allegged "badness". I've also toned down, deleted or commented out a few undocumented or unverifiable (for now) additions, but we could use some "official" standards for reviewing and sourcing, and, first of all, a team of people willing to do some research and perhaps improve the writing style of the article. EpiVictor 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions, the only problem is that they don't help the fact that the article would still be unrepentantly subjective. WikiPedia isn't a source for original research, so playtesting and personal reviews would only make it worse. What this article needs is to be renamed and seriously, seriously revamped. I suggest the new name be something along the lines of List of commercially and critically unsuccessful video games, and have various sources for each game. Ideally, this should actually be a WikiPedia category, and the sources added to the individual video game articles themselves, but I fear that the majority of the people editing, watching, and voting to keep this article don't 'get' the idea behind the WikiPedia, and would do well to read What Wikipedia is not. There are any number of places on the internet this could be taken, since it doesn't belong here in its current form. --DarrenBaker 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think about 50% of the 900 or so US NES games could fall into this page. I think we either need to explode the size of this article or cull it down to just very notable and famous examples. Rm999 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This list is definitely POV. Without some sort or fair ranking system (Hint, Hint) it is virtually meaningless. For instance, I really liked Deadly Towers for some of the same reasons it is disliked. I liked the odd enemies. I found the challenge of the extreme levels of difficulty to be especially appealing. Most games are just way to easy. I miss the days when game AI's cheated (3-D Tic-Tac-Toe (Atari 2600)) and you got a dragon dropped on you at the same time your sword was stolen Atari Adventure. Super Mario World was a major disappointment. Somehow it was easier to beat 96 levels than it was to beat the 32 in Super Mario Bros.--Zerothis 07:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Game "nominations"

In order to make this list more objective, I suggest that we nominate games for future inclusion in the list here in this section of the talk page, possibly providing a brief "reason" for inclusion as well as some links for all to evaluate, and then decide.

OK, here goes:

Where's Waldo? (NES)

Videogame version of the popular books, only with terrible graphics making it very hard to find him, immensely boring gameplay, only eight levels and no music.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/nes/review/563477.html

http://www.siliconera.com/nes/whereswaldo/031104.htm

http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/w20-12.htm

Savager 12:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

P.Y.S.T. (PC)

Apart from its amusing title, this was considered a poor parody of the Myst series with no gameplay and a bad sense of humour.

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/pyst

It's an old and obscure game, I can't find any other reviews for it. I highly doubt anyone would have given it a decent review though.

Savager 17:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Virtual Hydlide

I am surprised nobody nominated this title for the sega saturn. The game is probably so bad nobody wanted to play it. It has a framerate dropped down to 5 fps and most enemies had like 3 frames of animation. Dozens of glitches were included such as seeing bats behind walls, it was impossible to turn around without seeing the main character switch to third person to first person and while moving, objects changed to different sizes. It is considered an rpg, but it has nog villages, or text, or shop or even living creatures to conversate with. It doensnt have any experience indicators, instead of that everything is arranged through you score where you can buy items with. The rest of the game is a complete dud. The "map" looks like it was made on computer CGA graphics. It had 2 harder difficulty settings which didn't affect anything but destination points on the map. It has several "dungeons" which make you want to put down your controller immediately. For example, the volcano is like crazy, an enormous maze that has you go walking for ages while it is scattered with lava drops. You can only equip one item at a time and you need to wear the protective anti-lava hurting medallion so this option throughout the game is pretty lame. A detection spell can be casted which marks all the chests on the map, but the game is trying to fool you, containing several useless items like inferior pairs of armour you already have. While the chests are surrounded by lava, it is impossible to take its contents out without getting hurt. How can this possiblly not be one of the worst games. It killed the whole Hydlide series which was already as horrible as it can be. ([1])) ([2]))(([3]))

Army Men (various platforms)

Surely some of the Army Men games deserve a spot on the list? Over 20 games in 8 years - if nothing else 3DO deserve an award for quickest game series to sell out. I (unsurprisingly) haven't read reviews for all of them, but I remember reading a few and seeing them getting very low scores. Savager 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few to get started -

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/army_men

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/n64/army_men_sarges_heroes

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/ps2/army_men_green_rogue

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/sony/army_men_world_war_final_front

Savager 16:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I have played a fair few Army men games, and although many of them are bad, I would class none of them as the worst game ever. Although 20 games in 8 years in an amazing feet, that doesn’t mean the games are bad. So therefore I will oppose this.El cid the hero 18:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I personally like the games, however, they are the most ridiculed games ever for being terrible. I'm suprised that it took someone this long to nominate them.guitarhero777777 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Would it be okay to nominate the series as a whole and say something like "although the individual games receive mixed reviews, the series itself is considered to be overdrawn and is often subject to negative criticism"? Savager 09:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but i can't support a entire series being placed onto the list. if however, you found a game to represent the series as a whole, i might change my vote. El cid the hero 10:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Survivor (PC)

Game Revolution had to change their review system for this game. They didn't want to give it an 'F' because they thought that was too high. They gave it their first and only 'F-'. The review for it is here; they explain it better (and much more humourously) than I could:-

Most of the reviews from other websites are pretty low too:-

Savager 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Count Duckula 2 (ZX Spectrum)

This game received the lowest score by far in Your Sinclair magazine, receiving just 9% in December 1992 [4]. I would find other review sources for it, but the publishers Alternative didn't send review copies to any magazine - YS had to buy it themselves months after it was originally released (hence the 'Ones That Got Away' tag on the review) - so they must have known it was pretty bad. Sorry I couldn't find a HTML/plain text source for the review; this is a magazine scan. --Stevefarrell 12:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Star Fox (Atari 2600)

Considered by many as one of the worst Atari 2600 games of all time due to its awful controls and programming. [5] [6]

I didt even know there was such a game. I thought you made a mistake for the SNES version. I say yes to adding this, but add more sources and make it clear this isnt Nintendo.guitarhero777777 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

World War II Combat: Iwo Jima

A terrible FPS for PC and XBOX that recieved only a 2 from Gamespot and a 3 from IGN.

Put it in, I say. It's actually a sequel to World War II Combat: Road to Berlin which is already on the list. It's from the same developer (Direct Action Games) and suffers from the same problems of the first game. Spartan 234 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fight For Life

A terrible fighter on the Atari Jaguar. [7] [8] [9]

Club Drive

A terrible driving game on the Atari Jaguar. Ranked 2nd on Seanbaby's 20 Worst Games of All Time. [10] [11] [12] [13]

International Rugby Challenge (Amiga)

see here the review in british game magazine amiga power, it was so bad, because it basically didn't work at all, and therefore shameful to be released, it got 2% (and about 10% in average in the british game press, see also the page for Amiga Power Romanista 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like this one warrants an inclusion. Apparently half of its score is derived from "comedy value". Isopropyl 12:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

More reviews. I still say include it, though. guitarhero777777 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this site, the game got 56% in Amiga Joker (a German magazine) and 65% in CU Amiga. For the way those magazines marked games (ie awarding them marks just for existing and having a box, and giving games high marks because the PR people asked nicely), that's also pretty low. I don't know about The One or Amiga Action or any of those though. Amiga Action probably gave it 95%, the same mark they gave everything. --Stevefarrell 23:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Doom (SNES Version)

A terrible port of the First Person Shooter PC game. [14]

I've heard this game is mediocre, but not terrible. Fableheroesguild 19:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't that bad really. Certainly not as bad as some of these others. At least it worked like it was supposed to.

Doom (Saturn version)

  • Doom (1997, Sega Saturn): All Game Guide gave 1.5 stars out of 5 to this port, the worst rating given to any version of Doom--they even gave the Super Nintendo version two. I haven't played it, but from what they say it sure sounds terrible.
That's perhaps because the comparisons were done with the original game, and at the time very few -console or otherwise- versions of the game could compete with the original PC one in terms of gameplay smoothness, 3D engine completeness, third party support, and lack of censorship, so what most magazines did was comparing the source ports to the original PC Doom itself, instead of reviewing them as stand-alone games for a given platform. EpiVictor 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Like SNES version, i heard it was mediocre, not terrible. No ADD. guitarhero777777 22:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Kong (Intellivision Version)

A terrible port of the arcade classic. Ranked 9th on GameSpy's 10 most shameful games of all time. [15], [16] Poor graphics, bad sound, bad controls, bad jumping, bad collision detection for the hammer, and only two of the levels from arcade version.

More substance and more reviews and you have a game warranting inclusion. guitarhero777777 22:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Captain Novolin

An odd game designed to teach children about diabetes. [17], [18], [19]

GameRankings [20] mentions a site that game a 2.5/5 (50%) score to this game, but unluckily the review is no longer available. Let's see...other than that there's a bunch of negative Gamefaqs reviews, Abysmal player ratings at Gamespot... well I guess it's an "unusual" game at most, which is rendered extremely hard by Captain's Novolin inability to attack...and the premise of the game is somewhat controversial ( this particular reviewer with diabetes didn't particularly like the idea behind it). Nope, that's not a great game in my book. Further discussion? EpiVictor 00:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

on seanbaby's list of the most horrible games and i'm sure some other ones as well. --Philo 04:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's terrible, add it. guitarhero777777 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A hero whose weakness is diabetes? There's no way this can't be added. Savager 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad game. Misguided, perhaps, but as a side-scroller it's just generic, not terrible. This is one reason why I'm trepadatious about citing Seanbaby as a source. He's a funny guy, but he's writing for comedy first, and makes it quite clear that his process of evaulating games is not making any attempt to be truly scientific or objective. The motivations behind calling Captain Novalin the worst game ever seem to lean closer to "lol game about diabetes wtf" than "this game is truly atrocious, and as one of the 20 worst games ever, it is worse than thousands upon thousands of other games". See the comment above for a good example of this reaction. Sorry if I come across as a humorless nerd in saying this, but he's no Roger Ebert. --70.108.116.231 04:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Super Pitfall

The NES Pitfall game. When Activision planned to bring Pitfall to the NES, they let Pony Canyon develop and program it and the game got a lot of negative feedback, citing poor graphics, unresponsive controls, randomness, and Harry's resemblence to Mario. [21], [22], [23], [24]

This game can be played here.

You have the sources. It seems terrible. Add it. guitarhero777777 22:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ambulance Driver

A terrible Crazy Taxi clone on the PC. It recieved a 1.4/10 on [[Gamespot.com]], and users of Gamerankings.com gave it a 29%/100.Fableheroesguild 18:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Desert Bus

This game is part of Penn & Teller's Smoke and Mirrors. It consists entirely of driving a bus from Tucson to Las Vegas in real time with a maximum speed of 45 MPH. When the 8 hour trip is finished the player recieves 1 point and is expected to make the return trip. Scenery consisting entirely of desert land and cacti make the high point of the game a bug splat on the windshield every now and then.

I'm definitely on the fence on this one. Pros: It is a terrible game. Has benn released for emulators and bootleg Sega CDs. CONS: Mini-game, Originaly in unreleased game. Fableheroesguild 22:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This game is terrible, but I don't think it should be on this list (except maybe as an honorable mention). The reason for this is because the game was terrible on purpose. The creators of the game essentially prepared a cynical response to the anti-violence in videogames campagain at the time. The game was made terribly boring to make a statement about videogames needing to be exciting. --Whiteknight 22:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • i can't support this on the grounds that this is a minigame El cid the hero 15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I also am against this. It's more of a joke than an actual game. It could be considered an early serious game. Ace of Sevens 05:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Dog McCree 1&2

Circa 2001 & 2003. FMV games. Acting is mind-blowingly bad, dialogue is cheezy, and continuity errors abound (i.e., Indians who shoot guns at one cowboy, who then falls on the ground, full of arrows). Note: Worst rated games in the US edition of PC gamer with 8% and 4%, respectively. No URL's available, probably because no one wants to remember this terrible game! P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 01:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's no worse than your average FMV game, really. Also, PC gamer rated the DOS versions of these games in the 70's when they came out.

Virtuoso

Apparently, a poor 3DO clone of Revolution X, which was a clamorous flop itself[25].

More substance and sources. no inclusion. guitarhero777777 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Terminator 2 (Platformer)

Anyone who's played this will know what I mean. Bad concept and execution, poor controls, graphics and sound, and the terminator can be seen driving his cycle backwards during the chase scenes. SNES and Mega Drive, not to be confused with the microcomputer games or the arcade game, which was a noted success.--BaseballFury 00:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Add sources. No inclusion. guitarhero777777 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Plumbers Don't Wear Ties

I remember reading PC Zone years ago about 1998 or 1999 that in a top 100 worst games feature that this came out as the worst. I never played it myself but on their brief review it appears dreadful and seems to be more of a 3DO game as opposed to a PC Game. Basically comprised of watching still photos whilst a badly acted story played out. [26], [27] & [28]. --Wrh1973 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't mention the PC Zone, but do include the reviews and quotes from them. Find reviews with scores too, but I say yes. guitarhero777777 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Party Blast

I don't know a lot about this game (designed for the Xbox and PC), but I do know that it scores 19 at Metacritic, and that Gamespot gave it a 1.1 (abysmal); they said something like, "Letting a kid play this might teach them to hate video games, which I sure don't want to do."

Gamespot never gave it a rating. the 1.1 was by IGN, but reading the other reviews, we should add it in. guitarhero777777 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Party Blast was a Mario Party clone featuring Nicktoon characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.83.71 (talk • contribs)

Dragon Ball Z : Taiketsu

(Game Boy Advance, 2003)

Dragon Ball Z : Taiketsu, a 2D fighter made by US Team Webfoot technologies, is considered by most as the worst Dragon Ball Z game ever made, and surely one the worst games ever. Previous DBZ games ( Legacy of Goku series ) by Webfoot received average scores, but it was not the case here. Reviewers pointed the poor graphics (ridiculous characters with bizarre proportions, horrible backgrounds), the non-respect of the DBZ atmosphere (no voices, poor introduction scene) and terrible gameplay ( ridiculous number of attacks by characters, slow and boring fights). Beeing one of the numberous games made during the DBZ revival (due to the arrival of DBZ in the United States), the game didn't match against games like Dragon Ball Z : Supersonic Warriors or Dragon Ball Z : Budokai. The game get a 1/10 on french bigget videogames site Gamekult, which said "we wonder if devellopers ever saw one DBZ Episode before making it", 1/5 on Gamespy which claimed "It's a buggy and thoroughly uninteresting mess ". Gamespot followed the same way, saying the game was perhaps worst than Ultimate Battle 22, and giving it 2,7/10 ("terrible"). IGN reviewer said about Taiketsu "this first outing is incredibly weak", before giving it the less severe, but still poor score, 4/10.

Added by Delfiris, 05/12/2006 Add more terrible (2.5 out of 10 or below reviews) reviews we have a game warranting inclusion. guitarhero777777 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

NFL Quarterback Club

Imagine a football game where the moment play starts, every single character on the screen got up, and started running directly towards the ball. Blockers didn't block, receivers didn't receive (unless you were explicitly controlling him to go deep) and nearly every play ended in a horrible dog pile. Collision detection was terrible, graphics were bad (even for an N64 game), and AI was terrible. --Whiteknight 22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No sources. All opinion of user. No terrible reviews that I could find. Sorry, this game isnt allowed in this franchise (the article).guitarhero777777 22:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Airport Tycoon 2

I would add it and even add my own opinion if the game installed correctly on my computer, but find another terrible review instead of amazon due to 2/5 equaling 4/10 or mediocre.guitarhero777777 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Streets of SimCity

Admittedly, this is hardly one of the worst games ever. But then, a lot of films are on the Films considered the worst ever page, and they aren't even among the worst ever, and so I think Streets of SimCity fits right in. I used to have this game, and everything about it was so-so at best: the graphics were crappy, the sound effects were so cheap that they were borrowed from an action movie, the cars deliberately run into you, the movies you are forced to watch if you lose are depressing and repugnant, and even though the races are pretty easy to win, the regular missions are beyond impossible. [gmeric13@aol.com]

Sounds mediocre, but not laughably bad. No inclusion. guitarhero777777 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis

Panned by G4TV's X-Play with a 1 out of 5 for its subpar gameplay, controls, graphics, design, and "cutscenes." Review at G4: [29]. VTMarik 17:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard awful things about this game. You're gonna need more reviews to back in up, but otherwise, I think this list was made for this game. Fableheroesguild 21:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

2.3 from Gamespot and 3 from ign it belongs on the list --El cid the hero 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This game inspired the Golden Mullet Awards on G4's X-Play which is awards to the worst games of the year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega Metroid2486 (talk • contribs) .

Psycho

Psycho (1988, Amiga), a game based on Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 film of the same name. The very poor premise, about several jewels and their caretaker being stolen, is complemented by the fact that you already know who the culprit is (Norman Bates). All you can do inside the Bates motel is find the jewels, the caretaker, and take a fucking shower, and many people are around the house who will put you to sleep. You only have four hours to find everything, so by sleeping, you will be further away from completing your mission.

No sources. Sounds like a person who wasted his money, but has nothing to be able to put it on this list. guitarhero777777 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Gravity Games Bike: Street, Dirt, Vert

This game got savaged by both IGN and Gamespot and generally by other reviewers as well. It was criticized for bad graphics, a derivative nature, bugs and most of all difficult controls. [30] and [31] Ace of Sevens 18:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would add it, plus add the fact that Official Playstation Magazine gave this a .5 out of 5. guitarhero777777 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Add "Spyro: Enter The Dragonfly"

It was one of the worst video games by many, so why can't we add this to the article?

This is widely held to be the weakest Spyro game, but I don't recall anyone calling it the worst game ever and it has a thoroughly mediocre 49% for GCN and 56% for PS2 at Game Rankings. I don't think this fits at all.Ace of Sevens 14:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediocre at worst and actually well liked except compared to other spyro games.guitarhero777777 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is the worst Spyro game ever (it got about an hour's worth of gameplay from me before I sold it), but I'm not sure if it's bad enough to be one of the worst games ever. Savager 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Howzat Cricket

For the PC, anyone who played this game will contest to its crapiness. Chipwich 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, opinion. No sources. OR. guitarhero777777 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dark Castle

As it appeared in the recently added and removed entry:

  • Dark Castle (1991, Genesis) by Electronic Arts, a port of the black-and-white Macintosh game of the same name. The difficult controls of the Macintosh version (keyboard + mouse) were made even more difficult and unresponsive during the port to Genesis. The primitive sound effects were downsampled further (most likely due to the unorthodox compression algorithm used in the Macintosh version) and the graphics were barely colorized. All the bugs from the Macintosh version remain, and several were added.

Ok...the story behind it seems interesting, how about some references, too? EpiVictor 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

People, we need reference.guitarhero777777 22:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tabloid Tycoon

Anyone who has played this game will know what I'm talking about. I bought it one day at Target and was disgusted by how bad it really was. Plus it scores 13.5% at Gamerankings.

Add it a 1.4 out of ten average (which is what 13.5/100 equals) must be mentioned in this article. add sources and we have gold. guitarhero777777 22:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clayfighter 63 1/3

This title has quite a history on this list...while it was one of the original entries on this list, it was removed later on the grounds that only one reviewer (GamePro magazine?) gave it bad reviews. Some interesting facts to be verified or dismissed, before deciding to include/exclude it permanently:

  • The manufacturer allegedly published some extremely crisp and well-rendered screenshots that were supposed to represent how actually the game looked, yet the actual game was nothing like them (I remember an issue of Gamepro magazine published them in their review of the game, along with caustic comments).
  • The sound was described, at least by Gamepro, "as a garbage dump truck descending a cliff" or something along these lines.
  • How the press actually reviewed it, for some reason it's hard to find press reviews, but easy to find either praises or rants by fans/haters of the series. EpiVictor 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, from this IGN entry, an average press review score of 3.6/10, with 2/5 by GamePro, 3.1 from Gamespot, and 3.7 from IGN.com. This should be enough to place it definitively in the "worst ever" category, as it's marginally below the "mediocre" 40-60% zone. Of all reviews however, I recall GamePro's as being the most caustic, and the only one publishing the "preview screenshots" for comparison with the actual game's graphics, with a deletery effect. EpiVictor 17:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe this was a rental-only release. The press doesn't usually review those. Ace of Sevens 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • How can there be a rental-only release of a videogame? EpiVictor 17:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • WHy not? You'd do it the same way as a video, I'd think. Ace of Sevens 19:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
          • There would be no point in making a "rental only" version of a videogame. It should have what? Less levels? Worse graphics? Be based on early betas? Unlike "rental versions" of movies, videogames have never been made in "rental only" form, and in fact there's not even a "rental safe" copy prevention mechanism built in (yet, in some places you can rent PC games too!).
Sure, there are those java "cell phone games" which are made specifically for pay-per-play (or per-download) use,and are mostly simple and forgettable games, but this clearly isn't the case for a nintendo-licensed N64 title, which takes time and money to publish in expensive ROM cartridges.
The videogames that are rented have no differences from their "retail" versions, in fact they are exactly the same product. Sure, if you search enough, you may find imported or different versions of a game normally not marketed in a specific country via retail (e.g. due to censorship) but that has nothing to do with Clayfighter 63 1/3 case, unfortunately. EpiVictor 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
            • You can debate how much sense it makes, but there have been rental-only games. I would assume the advantage is you can charge an exorbitant price and not be subject to reviews. I found a source for this. It looks like there was a rental-only edition, but the game was available at retail. This is, in fact, covered in the game's article. There were five rental-only games for N64 in the U.S. Ace of Sevens 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Even admitting that an "enhanced" version of Clayfighter 63 1/3 was released (named "the Sculptor's cut", which supposedly enhanced the original game, that was a Blockbuster only release, and came one year later after the "normal" Clayfighter 63 1/3 was released (and reviewed by most of the specialized press). The "rental" release didn't receive as many reviews (or any review at all), as you seem to suggest. In any case, Clayfighter 63 1/3 fully qualifies for inclusion. EpiVictor 12:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: the "well rendered" screenshots which caused GamePro's caustic comments were released in 1997, and no, they weren't about the "Sculptor's cut" version, for which I found no source stating that it dramatically improved either the (lacking) video or audio quality. EpiVictor 12:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Every source I found said Sculptor's cut was actually even worse as a lot of moves were dropped to make room for the new characters, further unbalancing the game. Ace of Sevens 22:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL, that must have been the final nail in the coffin :-) . Could you dig up a couple of links, for inclusion in the article? EpiVictor 23:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
My source on that was Wikipedia, actually. The onyl other sources I coudl find were things like Gamespot Reader reviews. On closer inspection, most peopel seem to think it improved the balance and "Sculptor's Cut" is better egarded than the original. Ace of Sevens 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


FWIW, there have been rental-only videogames; however, you have to always realise they're usually "rental only" for certain markets, and not necessarily permanently so, even. I distinctly remember The Adventures of Bayou Billy being "rental only" in Finland - at least that's how it was described as in the local Nintendo mag. And yes, the magazine reviewed it even if it was rental only (can't honestly remember what their verdict was). Shouldn't have any bearing on getting on the list. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Duck Hunting

As it was removed for not being discussed, hereby...

  • Ultimate Duck Hunting (2006, PC) is a duck hunting game developed by Mid Carolina media for the PC. The goal of the game is to shoot ducks and then collect them with hunting dogs, a concept similar to that of the classic NES game, Duck Hunt. Not only is the game so bad only 3 media outlets cared to review it, IGN.com and Gamespot didn't even bother, but the fact it lead to the suicide of the GameTrailers reviewer[1], pretty much says enough about why the game is on the list.


Waterworld

In Waterworld on the PC and Virtual Boy you experience a painful game. Gamespot gave it a 4.5 and Nintendo Power ranked it as number 4 on the 5 Worst Games ever list in their 200th issue. According to most the graphics are sub-par a best and the game gets extremely tedious and diffecult as it goes along. They also say the Soundtrack is horrobile.

If every review was like nintendo Power's i would add it, but gamespot's review is just too much of an average score for me to recommend adding it. guitarhero777777 22:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

South Park Rally

Added by anon, who tried to put it back without discussing it, so here it is, up for discussion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • South Park Rally (2000, Nintendo 64/Playstation/Dreamcast/PC) is a racing game by Acclaim based on the popular cartoon South Park. South Park games are often highly criticised for their poor gameplay but South Park Rally is often regarded as the worst. GameSpot has given the game scores ranging between 2.5 to 3.9, depending on which version of the game you are playing. Electronic Gaming Monthly has given the game a 3/10 and on GameRankings it has an overall score of around 40%. Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the creators of South Park) have even said that they will never allow a South Park video game to be made again of how bad Acclaim "screwed up" the franchise.


i dont think this game deserves to be on this list simply because some reviewers over at gamefaqs think its a good game. some of them have given it a 6 out of 10 which is average. what do you think? Touth 21:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

reviewers on gamefaqs really dont count due to thier lack of credentials, we need expert reviews, and i would keep this game out for right now due to the high ratings on ign (if they werem the same as gamespots i would however put it in). guitarhero777777 22:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Robocop

Added by anon, who tried to put it back without discussing it, so here it is, up for discussion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Robocop (Xbox, PC 2003): A first person shooter game developed by Titus Software. It had very poor controls and terrible graphics. Fans of the original film were very disappointed due to the lack of references to the original films and Robocop himself having terrible one liners that he never was known to say when he would take out an enemy, such as "Oh yeah" and "bullseye!". The game received an extremely low score of 2.2 on gamespot.com thus pushing the film to game world to new lows.

Add the game, but site more sources. guitarhero777777 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


yep! this game certenly needs to be on the list. the only game site i could find for this game was gamespot and they have given it a 2.2 but i think that will do anyway. Touth 23:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

need more sources. i can't support a game that only has 1 source. El cid the hero 13:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bomberman: Act Zero

The latest Bomberman game for the Xbox 360, which basically sucks all the fun and charm out of previous Bomberman games, is already being reviewed as a terrible game. Gamespot has given the game a rating of 2.9, IGN has given the game a 3/10, 1UP has given it a 2/10, Game Informer gave it a 3/10, Electtronic Gaming Monthly has given the title a 2.67/10... need I say more?

Gamespot review: [32] 1UP review: [33] EGM review: [34] IGN review: [35]

Yep. Add it. The reviews demand it. guitarhero777777 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
remove this. it was released on August 29, 6 days ago. We can't put it in the List of computer and video games considered the worst ever if it is less than a week old, have some restraint. Also GameBrink gave it 70/100. Therefore how can it be put into the list? El cid the hero 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe because the majority of reviews claim the game is terrible? Blubberface
Normally, I'd agree with Cid, but this time, I truly feel that this game deserves inclusion even without a real reputation yet due to reviews and that fact that it tarnished a classic franchise (that I never cared for). guitarhero777777 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Definitely keep indeed. JackSparrow Ninja 05:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Ball GT: Final Bout

I never played the game (I hate DBZ anyway :P) but from what I understand it was a terrible game. Gamespot gave the game a 3.3 and IGN gave the game a 3.0, both saying the game is a very poor excuse for a fighter.

Gamespot review: [36] IGN review: [37]

Batman Forever

I had this game when I was a kid and, fortunately, I didn't realize how bad it was until years later. Anyway, this should be on the list because it was panned by a good deal of people (The only one I know of was that the Video Game Critic gave it an F, though ([38])) and it got a bunch of people at Acclaim laid off. I know that this isn't the greatest case to add this game, but when I have some time, i'll look for more sources. Hossmann 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ECW Hardcore Revolution

This is by far the worst wrestling game ever made. Gamespy gave it 2 out of 10, and IGN gave it a 4 out of 10, and for good reason. Acclaim put little to effort in this title, it feels too much like WWF Attitude, except with the ECW logo on it. This game has also failed to live up to its name, as in its not hardcore at all.

Sword of Sodan

Released by EA for the Sega Genesis. I can't seem to find much worthwhile information about this game - like many games in the early 90s, it just sorta vanished into obscurity - but - and I usually refrain from such hyperbolic statements - anyone who has played this game will agree that it's one of the absolute worst pieces of shit ever created. Ever conceived. This game is to side-scrollers what Thundra is to first-person shooters. It's a side-scroller with absolutely abominable control - the single biggest flaw in a smorgasboard of flaws. In addition, it features gratutious, cheesy blood, tacky and irritating voice samples, graphics that mistake digitization with quality, and invisible pits. Invisible. Pits. The only facet of a classically bad game that this game lacks is that it was not based on a licensed property. --70.108.116.231 04:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What's this list about, after all?

Let's face it people, there ARE bad games out there, although with different degrees of flawed content or technical implementations, and some controversy around the concept itself e.g.:

  • why are mostly console/commercial games targetted, when there are tons of rock-bottom ugly shareware, java and flash games out there?
  • Why are there not "official" reviewers?

The article should provide an explanation for these matters also, IMHO, which would be much better than labelling it as NPOV or deleting it.

I generally only list a videogame here if I can pinpoint at least two sources about it being "bad" or "bizzare", and if I can I proceed to a personal verification/review with an emulator or real copy of the game.

Please note that not all of the games listed here are necessarily horrible Atari 2600 title a-la E.T. or Pacman, and some aren't even "bad games" in the sense of unplayable but merely too bizzare or obscure, or just controversial on their own e.g. Ethnic Cleansing.

Perhaps we could change the title to include not only "worst" videogames, but also those controversial or simply bizzare (Hard Head) or known for something other than their value as a game (e.g. Zero Wing).EpiVictor 11:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the word 'infamous' should somehow be put into the title rather than 'worst' --Headcase 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is those games are usually "hosted" under articles with the words "worst ever" in their title, so at least a redirect from "worst games ever" or similars should be kept. Other than that, the title could indeed be changed in order to indicate controversy, bizzarry or "infamousness"...well..however "List of most infamous videogames" or "considered to be infamous" doesn't quite cut it IMHO...any ideas on how to better express this? EpiVictor 11:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


I have problems with both of these suggestions. Bizarre is, not by itself, terrible or "worst ever". The films of Salvadore Dali, while bizarre, are not considered the worst ever - unless we judge them by blanket standards (in which case we arrive at similar problems - when the Marx Brothers are changing wardrobes from shot to shot in Duck Soup, is this bad? What about Troma's Terror Firmer, or the similarly anarchic (and bizarre) Zucker/Abraham/Zucker films of the 1980s (Top Secret!, Airplane!, Naked Gun, etc)? Monty Python - both the TV show and the early films - was certainly bizarre, but would it be considered one of the worst television shows ever? This replacement would be replacing an article on oranges with an article on the Apple computer. "Bizarre" as a synonym for "terrible" is grade-school stuff, and thusly inappropriate for an academic - or even semi-academic - article.
Similarly, "infamous" doesn't exactly cut it for me, because it doesn't take the place of "worst". "Infamous" implies some measure of serious controversy - for instance, DOOM, Mortal Kombat, or Night-Trap (one of which is inarguably a classic, the other two slightly more hit-and-miss in terms of quality but certainly not worst-ever). Myst (one of the biggest selling games of the 1990s) was infamous, being considered the game which took computer games out from the (pardon me) bearded-elite and into the hands of the mainstream (and arguably the straw which broke the adventure games' camel's back) - a lot of reviewers, especially in the late-90s, used it as a turning point, the moment where games stopped being "for-gamers, by-gamers" and more "for-audience, by-company". Likewise, if one is writing about celebrity endorsements in a negative light, they would consider Dr. J and Larry Bird Go One on One infamous. Pac-Man was infamous amongst those who saw videogames as a corruption of America or American youth, Space Invaders was infamous for causing a Yen shortage in Japan, and the mediocre RadarScope was, I believe, the first game to cost $0.25 - or perhaps it was one of Sega's early offerings which cost $0.25, in which case RadarScope would then be infamous for being responsible for the popularity of Donkey Kong (which was coded to be swapped into unsuccessful RadarScope machines), which itself is infamous for being the subject of the infamous lawsuit by Universal Pictures. While quite fascinating from a trivia-minded perspective, this list would not serve the same purpose as the "worst games ever" list. People writing a paper for a media studies class would use this page, along with the worst in movies / worst in TV / worst in (etc.) pages, as a branching off point (at the very least) for academic research into what makes an entertainment product a success.
So while I'd gladly support the addition of either or both of these categories, replacing this article with either of those two titles is wholly inappropriate. --70.108.116.231 04:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Older subjects

I don't dislike the general idea of this page - in the same way that popular games of the past stand out in ones (and in people's collective) memory, so to do true stinkers. However, I'm not sure how this article could be anything but a buried link from a game related page, as opposed to something you could easily and consciously search for.


I feel like I need to defend the author a bit, on the relative dearth of references. The deeper into the mists of game history we go, the less material I think is to be found that can act as reference material: bad games are a kind of amorphous counter culture camp issue. As well, the occasional "top ten worst games ever" stories that appear on large, bland game news sites generally tend to focus on somewhat recent games (that is, this author's inclusion of the old E.T. game is something that would never happen elsewhere despite being one of the ultimate crappy games).


The topic in general is vague, but still very real: it's not bad games per se that is the issue, but bad games that had a lot of visibility. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call this topic something along the lines of "spectacularly failed games" or "game hype/overhype" etc.

In this way of thinking, Daikatana really is a good model for this: at the time Daikatana came out, there were certainly other games that were just as bad, or worse. It was the overselling/hype of the game that made it universally derided. We don't remember things like this due only to their poor quality, but instead remember them with disaste for the associated hype, which created something that brutally failed to live up to the hype (with big budget movies sometimes falling into this category).


If we look at this idea as the heart of this article, then I think we have something worth keeping which catalogues the best examples of a hyped game turning out to be spectacularly not worth the fuss that preceeded it. (anon, Oct 1 2005) Finally started an account, so: Dxco 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the neutrality dispute can be resolved by adding ratings from magazines and the like. At least it won't seem like one person's opinion. Also the title could be worded better (maybe "List of bad videogames"?). - Diceman 13:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the page is fine the way that it stands. After all, the very title of it works in its favor. "Considered to be." It doesn't mean they are or they aren't (though E.T. definitely is), but due to the hype/overhype, poor quality, and general lacking attributes of the games, they deserve to be on this page. SmokerKat 10:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

revamp

this article needs to be revamped. games like big rigs, action 52 and atari pac man should be kept as they are widely considered flops but games like daikatna (sp) should be removed because it seems like opinion. --Phil 12:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

new rule that I think should be implemented, we don't list games arbitrarily, just like on other wikipedia "list" articles. a game should be "nominated" on the talk page (sources provided) and it will be added if it's decided it is credible to consider it a "horrible" game. take a look at List of films that have been considered the worst ever and you'll see what this article should be. just because there are no video game critics in the sense of people like roger ebert, doesn't mean video games cannot be considered bad in a NPOV way --Phil 19:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Horrible article

What a horrid article this is.

While the principle of the article is fine, it seems to have become a load-off point for people to complain about games they don't like. Why exactly are "all" Amstrad CPC games lumped in here? The system was known as a poor gaming system, but there were a good number of games praised. I've made a start with cleaning out all the trash here, but it's going to take a while.

People, if you're going to include a game here, back it up. One review, or a couple of links from nn sites are not proof of a game's notoriety. A good point of reference (for recent games at least) is Gamespot's "other reviews" lists, which offer a summary of reviews on other sites.

I've only got to "E", but a few notes on what I've done:

Deleted

  • Amstrad CPC - Games, not entire games systems, people.
  • Avalon Hill's Squad Leader - Has received average, not bad reviews on GameSpot. Got 2 stars on Amazon.
  • Bionic Commando (Amstrad CPC) - Got reasonable reviews in press.
  • Blue Ice - Reviews I've seen were quite positive.
  • Bravoman - Have seen nothing negative about the game.
  • Wonder Momo - See above.
  • Bubble Bobble - PlayStation version was widely praised, PC version was criticised as average, but not overly bad.
  • Clayfighter 63 1/3 - Average reviews in general, Gamespot's seemed to be exception.
  • GI Combat - lacked sources

Uncertain, left for time being

  • Cyberbykes - Because I can't find justification either way
  • Daikatana - Because of the controversy caused by Romero's outbursts, the delay and the disappointment caused. I'm tempted to wipe it because it was criticised as "nothing special" but didn't receive bad marks by any means.
  • Drake of the 99 Dragons - All reviews are generally at most 2/10 or equivalent.

People - this is not a dumping ground for your hate of games you've bought. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 21:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bubble bobble on PC is awesome! I have personally played it for hours on end. Hardly a worst ever. I agree with the removal WookMuff 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Jamyskis, the reason that some "not so horrible" games or whole categories appear is that some people (including myself) wanted to expand the article's contents to also include controversial games such as Ethnic Cleansing, or ridiculed games such as Wonder Momo/Zero Wing. Maybe then we should follow that ages-old advice of changing the article's title or splitting the article into a "worst ever" and a "controversial" games articles...just keep this in mind before proceeding with cleaning up. EpiVictor 12:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. The title is in itself misleading but there needs to be a focus for it. That these games are considered "bad " needs to be justifable though. Sources need to be provided, and from reputable gaming magazines or websites. GameSpot, IGN, PC Gamer, Edge Magazine are good examples, not some homemade site. Amstrad CPC games were not particularly great, I agree, but there is enough of a critical background and fan base to suggest that this wasn't a universal opinion.
As a general rule, I've used GameSpot's list of available reviews, GameSpy's Worst Games Ever list and a quick Google search as a check to see if opinions of the games are generally despised. Controversial games such as Thrill Kill belong in a "controversial" section. Daikatana was controversial from its marketing and development, but by no means one of the worst games (it garnered around 5/10 on average in reviews). Most of the games I've removed seemed to be there simply on someone's whim with no background sources or justification. There wasn't a single game that could be called "controversial" that I deleted.
There's enough games around that garner 1/10 across the board and have a general reputation for being appalling to create a sensible, objective article. WonderMomo was, as you say, ridiculed for its rather Japanese sense of humor, but I've seen little proof that it is considered bad, let alone one of the worst games ever. The site quoted was a homemade site that is of little quotable value. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 20:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
"Controversial" is a horrid choice of words for a game like Zero Wing. What's the polemic issue? That some translators in the early 1990s didn't really know English? Somehow I don't think that this is why people talked about Zero Wing so much. "Notorious" would be slightly better, but is still rather over-the-top - notoriety implies that a wide audience knows about the game in question, and not all games in the Zero Wing vein are well-known. "Cheesy" is good, but would probably arouse the ire of those who take Wikipedia as Serious Business. Same with "trashy". If someone could find an objective basis for "sleazy" or "kitsch games", I'd be all for it. --70.108.116.231 04:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As a rule for myself, I make sure the games I have and eventually will put in have almost unanimously low reviews (Usually a 3 at most on most websites). I even try to find 2 or 3 sources to put in the article. With Drake and Kabuki Warriors (the two I put in), i was hard-pressed to find even mediocre reviews for those games. If one source gives it a bad review, don't put it in. But if there is only one even average review from reputable game sites, the game could be put in. Gamespot (where I get most of my reviews) even shows what other game sources gave the game. But I agree with people not putting in personal opinions. JUST DON'T PUT IN PERSONAL OPINIONS. This is an article for games generally regarded as terrible, not regarded terrible by one person. If I put in my personal opinion , then Final Fantasy X and Katamari Damacy would be in here, but since they are critically acclaimed, I would never put those games in.Fableheroesguild 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(Not sure where to put this, sorry...) I was on the Bubsy 3D team at the time the game shipped. Next Generation magazine said in some list of games a while later that Bubsy 3D was "the most reviled game of all time," however all of the previews, based on the same version of the game gave it glowing reviews... Alas... The fact is that Bubsy 3D was one of, if not the first free-roaming open-environment 3D games ever, so yeah, the "horrible" controls (which went on to drive one of the more successful PlayStation franchises) were obviously because there weren't any examples to draw from. Saying that the programmers didn't have experience in 3D is a bit of a misleading statement, also, since nobody in the game industry had 3D experience at that time. The look of the game was intentional, and blaming that on some supposed lack of experience seems odd. I think it did poorly commercially due to the fact that it launched against Crash Bandicoot (2D gameplay with lush graphics) and Tomb Raider (huge tits in a tightly constrained environment). Tom Plunket, 22:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't list games that have Seanbaby as the sole source. He's good, but it's just one guy's opinion. We don't put movies on Films considered the worst ever just because Michael J. Nelson made fun of them. Ace of Sevens 22:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's Timeline?

The game Timeline has to be here. It was both hated by all and a commercial faliure.80.178.164.73 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I can hardly remember that game, so I cannot tell. But by the very few (one) reviews I was able to find it looks mostly like a commercial failure (based on a good book) but it does not meet the criteria for being called a "worst ever" game, it might be boring but not flawed or offensive in any other way. [39]. If you have sources supporting the opposite, please provide them. EpiVictor 20:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Hello. A WP:3O request was made on this entry, as to whether to keep it or not. My 3rd and outside opinion is to keep the list, POV though it may be, it can always be improved upon. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? But I thought the article already survived two deletion nominations, and was even subject to a third one which resulted in a "speedy keep" administrative action. Furthermore, the article now has grown, most references have been cleaned up, it has been linked to by outsiders, and, I believe, it's much more than just a list of worst ever games, by now. (In fact, it should have its name changed, but it's a tough step  :-) Are there still doubts whether it should exist on wikipedia or not? EpiVictor 11:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There are still doubts, since it's completely arbitrary and subjective, though people seem not to understand that. If the entries aren't supported only by POV edits, then they're supported by one or two John Q Public review pages which don't present facts. People are taking the reviews and presenting the subjective prose as fact, when in fact they should be presenting and citing quotations. For example, you can't say:

Superman 64 (1999, N64) is widely aknowledged as one of the worst games ever on the Nintendo 64. It mainly consists of flying through hoops.

That is rife with weasel words and hearsay. You can say:

Superman 64 (1999, N64): According to Gamespy, "Gameplay is so terrible, the controls so unresponsive, and the graphics so foggy that the developer had to spin some silly backstory about Lex Luthor creating a 'virtual reality' Metropolis, since nothing this bad could possibly exist in the real world." Gamerankings.com has a game ranking of 21% based on 17 media outlet reviews, and Seanbaby.com wrote, "Superman looks a lot like a flying log in panties, and the entire world is covered in a dull green fog."

Well, that's a bit that needs fixing....most other descriptions are not like this, I didn't write this one and neither checked it much, I must say.EpiVictor 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The sources are bad, the idea of the article is at odds to the idea of the Wikipedia, and the people defending the article are defending the convenience of having it here, they are not defending the strength of the Wikipedia.
While it is true that this article has survived three delete votes, remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Most people who edit the Wikipedia don't fully understand what is allowed and what isn't; Here's a simple test: Would you find this article in a printed encyclopaedia? --DarrenBaker 15:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No, but you also wouldn't find Cho Aniki or Gals Panic or any other videogame related subject, for that matter, at least not in depth. On most printed encyclopaedias, videogames are still treated as a sort of unimportant trivium, and at most once can find generic historic info (mostly the story of Pong) and a quick glance at the evolution and that's it. Wikipedia is very different in this matter. Plus, I always thought the article was in spirit with the ones about "worst movies" and "worst music" ever. I know this counterargument might be moot however, since many of the wikipedians opposing this article also oppose those articles too.
I believe that the "Criticism" section of the article does a fairly good job at making clear that there is no such thing as an "autoritative" or "academic" videogame reviewer, there is no school or university for becoming one and that more or less, reviews are either written by loosely "specialized" journalists, or even random "John Q Public" guys, EVEN ON PAPER MAGAZINES, that's right.
So, does this means that no credit must be given to reviewers? Surely, a video game review is something very subjective, since there are no "official" reviewers, but those guys can decide a game's fate. If some "John Q Public" writing an article for e.g. PC Gamer writes an article which says that game X is bad and it gets published, then this article WILL have impact. The sources and references to game reviewing sites are included and used as a basis since there are no better sources for game reviews, and are surely known to have IMPACT over a game's destiny.
Of course, things could be different if e.g. Britannica decided to hire "academic" game reviewers and publish a sort of "official, authoritative and undisputed" encyclopaedia of games...but does that mean that all articles based on actual third-party reviews (of anything) are not attendible? That would have tremendous repercussions (as a minimum) over all of Wikipedia's video gaming related articles, not just this one. EpiVictor 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Hey, I was just responding to the 3O request. Personally, as a prior game magazine editor (Strategy Player Magazine, now defunct), we have our own list of strategy games that were considered the "worst ever". So if any game is included an a reputable source's list of "worst games ever", shouldn't it be listed here? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL don't worry, I wasn't "bashing" you in any way, I was in turn responding to other users' comment in this section. About your definition of a "reputable source", that seems to be exactly the problem with most detractors of this article. E.g. have you, as a game reviewer, been ever officially qualified or recognized as being one? Is there a sort of globally or even locally recognized "association of game reviewers" whose word is law? My guess is there isn't one, anywhere in the world...(but, to some extent, this applies to movie and music critics as well). However, by accepting the fact that there are no "better" sources than game reviewers/journalists for video game reviews/criticism, then yes, their opinions and "worst ever" lists should be included here too, of course by stating that they are the opinions of reviewer X on game Y, and not by presenting them as some sort of "ultimate truth". EpiVictor 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Official grouping? Of course not. We just need to find a consensus amongst this page as to what qualifies as to reputable. I do however recall there being a grouping of movie critics. Anyway, the qualifications and recognization of being a reviewer is de-facto as well as de jure....look up the published work, it's still out there. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 17:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. The problem with both the title and the content of this article is that it presents opinion as fact. What it should be is a collection of games that were critically panned, and the title should be changed to something along the lines of List of critically unsuccessful video games, using quotes everywhere. --DarrenBaker 16:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, fair enough...although "converting" the entire article in this, let's say, format, will take some time, many entries will have to be rewritten, others removed, sources and quotations will have to be dug up, and new entries must be carefully screened. Oh well, I hope that at least the sections not referring to specific titles need less of a change. I will try to adhere to that format from now on, if it will help towards NPOV and acceptance.EpiVictor 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image for the "C" section

Please don't lose all respect for me when I say this, but that game emotionally disturbed me, not that I've ever played it. Can we, at the very least, get a screenshot of one of the other bad games under "C"? I mean, I'm sure you could just follow the "Most Shameful Games" link if you're dumb enough to want to see a screenshot. (Of course, I didn't click on that for myself, because that'd be a mental death wish.) I think the Killer List of Videogames lets you use their caps for yourself if you credit them; I could be wrong, though. Darth Katana X 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ehm...do you mean that Custer's Revenge picture disturbed you, and it shouldn't appear normally? Uhm...well...that can be discussed. About the other "C" games....Cyberbykes already has a PD screenshot (yeah, it really looks like that) and a Cheetahmen 1/2 screeshot could be added, I guess...however wikipedia itself is not about morality or censorship, so maybe we could place a warning or an exposable picture or something. Need some feedback on this... 193.92.212.28 20:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
how about its a bunch of lame pixels? I honestly doubt anyone will be turned into a raving sex fiend from seeing that picture... if so, that person already has MAJOR issues WookMuff 22:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I vote for a Cheetahmen 1/2 picture. It wouldn't be censoring anything per se to put up a new screenshot. People would probably enjoy the page more if it didn't have nasty image in it (even if it's pixelated, it still is nasty). Darth Katana X 02:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Once you complained, removing the picture inquestion became censorship... BUT if you can find a good C-game pic then i won't complain... as long as you leave the pic on the custer's revenge page that is... offensive or not, it totally belongs there WookMuff 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
All right, I'll definitely see what I can do. (I suck at making screenshots, but if I can find some cap on the Internet and get permission to use it, that'd fly, right?)
Update: There was already Cheetahmen screenshots on the page, so I used one. As for re-arranging the screenshot to be by the Cheetahmen description and not that other game, I thought I'd leave that to you more experienced editors; after all, they do look kind of cool right in the middle like that. Anyway, I still don't think it's necessarily "censorship." Unless I'm wrong, Wikipedia's policy is basically "don't be foul unless you have to be to get your point across," and having that cap up was not necessary. Darth Katana X 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Removing something because you feel it is inappropriate is censorship. I don't care about custer's revenge either way, but what you did could still be termed censorship, right or wrong, policy or no. WookMuff 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

title

lame name change. so weak WookMuff 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Umm, the article is ok...but it can stand a LOT of improving.

For instance, what's THIS doing in an "official" encyclopedia?

"Seanbaby.com wrote, 'Superman looks a lot like a flying log in panties, and the entire world is covered in a dull green fog.' "

Since WHEN is Seanbaby a "reliable source"? The answer is, he isn't.

I especially didn't care for the way he dissed the graphics for Bible Adventures (after all, the game is meant for CHILDREN to play--not teens or adults.) So, my point is this: if you're making a game for children, then would you pour ALL of your artistic creativity into that game you're making for children?

The answer is no, you wouldn't. You would make graphics that would appeal to the child. Hence, the cartoony and kinda goofy-looking sprites and background.

So, anyways...Seanbaby is not a credible source--now Gamespy and its ratings on the games ARE credible and you can leave in what the polls had to say about them I guess.

But Seanbaby....ummm no.

-- JFB

Seanbaby wrote that for EGM, which is a reliable source. They wouldn't have posted it if it was total BS. Besides, you seem to have a complete lack of humor detection, or any sense of exaggeration. Stop being all uptight. Sertman 22:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Sertman


Re: To Sertman


I don't know about that...

Just now, I went to the EGM site and did a search for "Superman 64 review" Click on the link and you'll get the complete list of the folks who did a review for EGM on Superman 64.

I then did two searches on the following phrase:

'Superman looks a lot like a flying log in panties, and the entire world is covered in a dull green fog.' "

I did a Google search and a Hotmail Search and on the Google search, I only got two relavent results:

1. Wikipedia's article 2. Seanbaby's site

Can I have your sources?

Lastly...You said: "You seem to have a complete lack of humor detection, or any sense of exaggeration. Stop being all uptight."

As for humor detection, yeah, it's funny to have a guy pile a bunch of animals on top of a banana and carry them all the way to the ark. It's also kinda funny to see Mary surrounded by Egyptian soldiers and chuck baby Moses over top of them to the other side of the screen. It's even more hilarious to convert people by throwing fruit at them--and zippo, a demon pops out of them, they kneel, and then get saved.

Yeah...a lot of elements in those games kinda get exaggerated. And yes, it's quite humorous at times, to see these kind of things happening...

But to go as far as to say that it's the worst game BECAUSE of this, well, that's just....plain non-sense.


--JFB 19:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The piece appeared in the magazine, so it obviously wouldn't be online. And have you even played Superman 64? It's awful, from my own experience to others [40] Sertman 20:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

re-direct

I think the Search "bad games" should re-direct to this page as it is most likely what the person would be searching for. What does everyone else think? el cid the hero 13:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitively EpiVictor 12:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

we need a notice

I don’t know about everyone else, but I am sick of people placing games in this article out of anger over a purchase without going through the nomination process.

With that in mind would it be a good idea to insert a notice on the top of the page?

Something along the lines of “To allow this article to conform to Wikipedia’s NPOV policy new entries on this page have to go through a nomination process on the take page.”

I personally think this is a very good idea. We need to check whether such a notice/template already exists for such cases, and, if not, propose it as a wider wikipedia standard for similarly themed (mostly "unusual" or "best"/"worst" lists). EpiVictor 11:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment A note to all editors:
Before adding anything to the list, see the talk page to see if it complies with the definition of a fad. When you are describing these fads, please be specific, or they may be removed from the list.
This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness.
Revisions and sourced additions are welcome.

using this as a base we could create something like this

Comment A note to all editors:
Before adding anything to the list, visit the talk page to nominate the game for listing. When you are nominating a game, please provide one or two credible reviews, or it will be removed from the list.

would this be a good idea? El cid the hero 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what this article (and perhaps other similar articles) needs. I hope it will help raise the credibility and status of the article. EpiVictor 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Thundra

Should the phrase "the game can be freely downloaded, in its full version, from Spungulas Software itself" be included in the article? Can it be considered advertising for the game?

Since no money is made from it, I suppose it's OK, unless I'm missing something. Other articles which treat freeware or abandonware games DO provide downloads for them, if legal, and Thundra's download is perfectly legal, and comes from the makers themselves, so... EpiVictor 12:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


The general article contains inaccuracies in the information. While I have no problem with THUNDRA being placed here, I would at least like to see "accurate" information and not blatant lies placed here to be read by others. Thanks. Owner, Spungulas Software.

Some of what you removed was sourced (The fact that it was the first game to get a -50 on Something Awful). Are you saying it wasn't intended to be sold commercially? That you didn't use public domain art or soemthign else? If there are inaccuracies, we can fix them, but you need to be more specific.Ace of Sevens 15:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It did sell commercially, several hundred copies at $14 per copy, so where did the author assume it was a complete failure?. Their was no public domain art used. In a test version (not intended for the internet) we used a modified DOOM character. It was never released to the public and we did in fact not admit to anything so we're not sure where or how the test version ever got there. We did use models made by other authors and that was for Thundra only and with permission. somethingawful is not a major gaming site and really does not qualify under wikipedias requirements. Anyone knows that they are a joke site, even they admitted to that, sop I don't see why it would even be there since as I said before, they are not 1 of 2 (required) major gaming websites. When we referred to old games being removed, we were talking about the DOS based ones. That statement in the article is irrelevent to Thundra and seems to be a jab. I wrote an article on talk in defense of the review and have also placed it on our website as a back up. Like I say, I don't mind it being here. It has helped us sell other stuff we do, but I don't like inaccuracies. The author verified nothing. I'm not even sure where he would have gotten that stuff from really.

The "public domain art" part was taken from the "credits.txt" file included with Thundra's download. Without criticising anything or anyone, the file states that some public domain art ("freely distributable for any purpose: [sic] ) was used as a base (again, not a bad thing on its own, even DOOM used public domain sounds), so I don't see how stating that is "inaccurate". The tone may be something more disputable, though, and can be changed if it's found to be biased.
The modified DOOM character (the zombie marine guy?) seems to appear only in the Something Awful review's screenshots though, and not in the full version. If he was supposed to be found only in a test version, then a person having that version must have provided the material to SA.
About other major gaming sites...well, yeah, it should have more backup, the trouble is it's impossible to find any other reviews except for SA's. In this case, the fact that the game wasn't even reviewed by major gaming sites or magazines can lead to an educated guess about its overall quality (something similar applies to Ethnic Cleansing, although the reasons for it not being reviewed are different).
So IMO the entry can stay, maybe by changing some of the "inaccuracies" or by rewriting it in a more neutral manner. If extra reviews confirming its status can be found, that would justify its presence further, while finding reviews reversing its status, would lead to a graceful removal from the list. EpiVictor 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

blanked C section

I was reading the article and noticed a copyedit was needed in the C section near Cheetahmen. I signed in and returned to find the section blanked. I thought I was reverting it with my edit but it didn't happen. Sorry if I stomped anyone's edits. Jasongetsdown 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it Jasongetsdown 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs a Weasel Words tag...

I still see plenty of weasel words in this article. How about putting up the dedicated tag found here: Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. --Metron4 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag added. I was specific by placing it at the first section to prominently use phrases like "is considered", "were generally considered", "was considered",etc. In fact, the word considered should be removed from the title, as this compromises the integrity of this article from the very beginning.--Metron4 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It seems to me that this article falls under the first of the exceptions in the Weasel Word guide - "the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion." And the word "considered" in the title is the basis for the exception: the article concerns the opinions of gamers in general, an uncitable community of people.--Herald Alberich 06:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This article does fall under the list of exceptions, but as with all those exceptions, they merely provide an excuse to use them. They are still poor forms of writing, such as "Some people prefer cats, others prefer dogs." How does this statement enhance information? Sometimes it's night, sometimes it's day. Who cares? Weasel words do more than inject bias by applying vague numbers of people; they inject hollow statements that detract from real facts. Some of the examples in this article actually manage to back up games that should be here. The ones that don't should be reworded, made stronger by doing some research and finding facts to back them up, instead of applying them to hosts of "mosts".--Metron4 23:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Physics and in-game mechanics

GoldenEye and Metroid Prime are both listed under this section. While GoldenEye lacks the ability to jump (massive strike), I believe that Metroid's only flaw is that falling does not cause damage (something that may be excuse by Samus' suit). Am I remembering this correctly? If so, I'll explain GoldenEye's position in that category (it is currently listed with no reason given) and remove Metroid. We can probably find a better example if people wish to list several games. Ladlergo 16:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be better to remove game-specific examples in that category and just list flaws/undesirable features in a more generic manner. EpiVictor 14:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Nominations

People need to delete old nominations. I deleted those that hadn't been touch on since April and before and I got marked for vandalizing. I know I forgot to put it down in the summary, but still. Please people, help me out in organizing the nominations. Fableheroesguild 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did a massive clean-up. I removed all add nomination that had been around a couple months and only gotten no votes, all add nominations that are on the list now, all delete nominations that were already removed, whole categories of games like Wisdom Tree or Atari Jaguar and combined some dupe nominations. Hopefully this is more manageable now. Ace of Sevens 23:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Game Removal "nomination"

In order to allow for a more representative article. This area is for discussing if you think a game should be removed from the list. El cid the hero 18:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jaws

Why is it here? There's no citation or external link, and I doubt any source ranks it as "one of the worst games ever". Kil (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember hating that game when I was a kid because I didn't have the manual and couldn't figure out what to do. It's too old to have many web sources, but it averages about 5.4 at GameFAQs, but it does have a lot of ones and twos there, so some people think it's the worst game ever, at least. Anyone have a bunch of old Nintendo Power issues around? Ace of Sevens 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember hating it as well, but it's important to have a source. If any GameFAQs user review qualifies as a source for the article, well... we'd end up with a lot of simply mediocre games being added to the list. Kil (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I signed up for a Wikipedia account specifically because I saw Jaws listed on this page. Jaws absolutely should not be an entry on this list. The game is certainly too short (it can be beaten in 15 minutes or so), but it is a fun game. Neither is it one of the worst games of all time, nor is it considered one of the worst games of all time.

I cannot find any press reviews, but the IGN Reader Reviews (found here: http://cheats.ign.com/objects/007/007129.html) place this game at a solid 6.8.

This is a solid, fun game. The sound and graphics were, for the time, completely acceptable and perhaps even good. The gameplay mechanics were quite good. As I said, the game is too short -- but it is not nearly one of the worst games of all time.

Delete it. DJ Langlois 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, this game was a very good Atari 2600 style game. To be even more fair, however, it should be stated that this game came out two years into the NES's lifespan, by which time the 15 minute game had been made redundant. Generally, I think that it's more a doggedly mediocre game than a true Color Dreams style affront to gaming. --70.108.116.231 02:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Boiling Point

This game should not be in here. It was never nominated, had no citatons, and actually garnered good reviews (7 from gamespot, average of 7.5 elsewhere). guitarhero777777 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. I normally keep an eye on such things, but I missed it. Ace of Sevens 09:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Trix

I was looking through the games and i noticed Jonny Moseley Mad Trix was put in. while a terrible game, I dont believe it was nominated. guitarhero777777 07:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Deadly Towers

Smilar to Jaws, I would say that this is more a doggedly mediocre game than an outright terrible, worst-ever game. Seanbaby did rank it as #1, but I really don't feel comfortable with Seanbaby as a source, especially considering that his article omits legendary garbage such as Action 52 and the Bunch Games disasters. I recall a lot of people agreeing that subsequent loathing for this game was more for the purpose of agreeing with Seanbaby (one of the first, if not 'the' first ultra-charismatic Web personalities) than any actual objective take on gaming.

So just to restate, I feel that the game certainly isn't a resounding success, but is far better than most games on this list. "Dull and uninspired, but playable" is a far cry from games such as Battlecruiser 3000 A.D. and White Men Can't Jump.

Thundra

We only have one review here and it's from Something Awful. Granted, it's the lowest score they ever gave, but it seems like picking on a little guy to list a game that was never commericially released. Also, the bulk of the content is disputed by the original author of the game. I suggest we remove it altogether. Ace of Sevens 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thundra should not be removed just because the author doesn't support it being in the article. Although I do agree we need more that Something Awful to back this up. As the game can be downloaded, I suggest someone downloads the game and plays it themselves and then reports back to how true the entry on the list is. El cid the hero 11:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wanted a report? Here you go:
The SA review is quite close to the truth, unfortunately. The game might be hyper-configurable in terms of video resolutions, 3D renderers and 3D audio options to choose from, but it's really plagued by a horribly awkward interface (just try loading a saved game after your first death, especially if you were playing fullscreen...) and an ultra-complicated control system, quite different that what you'd consider "standard" for a FPS game of its era (2000).
Just taking a look at the sheer number of different key bindings will convince you. Even getting to throw a stick of dynamite is a chore, as it requires first selecting the stick of dynamite with its own key binding before throwing it (no, no unified selection and fire buttons here) and it's utterly ineffective vs opponents that have no problem manuevering and unleashing devastating attacks as soon as you're spotted.
If the game had a better control system it would surely score above average, but as it's now it's clearly a case of bad controls being the main difficulty. I mean, in the time you need in Thundra to select and throw that dynamite, in e.g. Doom you get to kill about 20 monsters and dodge 10s of fireballs...not to mention non-automatical healing and the use of more complex items. On a positive note, I didn't find Thundra's graphics and sound as bad as the SA guys did, considering it's a 2000 game, but the problematic controls completely ruined a potentially interesting game. EpiVictor 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

article size

this talk page is now 84KB in size. is it time to archive it? El cid the hero

I cleaned it up a bunch. Ace of Sevens 23:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Eliminating alphabetical listing

Reviewing other articles listing "flops" and "worst ever" lists, I would like to propose the elimination of current alphabetical listing in favor of broader subcatagory listing akin to Films considered the worst ever.

The subcatagories I suggest (and would encourage others to add to) are:

  • Failed Expectations
  • Exceptionally Poor Programming
  • Movie-to-game Failures
  • Exploitive and Gratuitous
  • Dubious Gameplay

Failing a consensus, I suggest a platform listing.--Kenn Caesius 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

THere's a lot of subjectivity and overlap in those categories and we already have a page for commerical failures. Sorting by platform might be a good isea. Ace of Sevens 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of sorting them by the way in which they're terrible games. I'm not sure that I like "Failed Expectations" and "Movie-to-game Failures"(how did the game fail expectations, etc), but I like the other ones. Ladlergo 02:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

i would support somthing along this line El cid the hero 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

After some consideration, I am begining to wonder is there any need to actually list games that failed to live up to the hype and critically panned (hence the tentative title "failed expectations") as most likely, Battlecruiser 3000AD would be the only one in it and might lead to arguements over what other games should be listed in the same catagory.
Responding to to user Ladlergo's comment, Movie-to-game Failures is a subcatagory whose definition would be games based on movies that where commercial failures and chided in reviews. Reviewing the article, games like Bebe's Kids, Charlie's Angels, E.T., and so on would make excellent entries.
I would really like to see these games listed according to their faults and encourage users to suggest that those faults should be listed as.--Kenn Caesius 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The deleted examples section

There was a previous "examples" section that was removed, and expanded on what is considered a bad or undesirable feature of game. Seeing how there's some interest in a non-alphabetical format of the guide, and how "failed expectations" could be defined, I decided to post it in the talk page, and leave it as a reference (or an eventual partial restore).

Examples of bad game design and undesirable features

Controls

  • Non-intuitive, non-standard or awkward controls usually frustrate reviewers and gamers alike. For example, if a game requires players to use the standard buttons to move (instead of the analog stick), the controls are counterintuitive. Note: what a "standard" control is depends largely on the game type and game system itself.
  • Slow response is almost universally viewed as a bane to any videogame.
  • On the other hand, excessively sensitive controls, or those requiring very exact timing or precision, are also often disliked by gamers.
  • In general, when the inadequacy of the controls themselves is an important factor in a game's difficulty. This makes the gameplay appear poor and based only on hard-to-use controls, and is likely to cause players and reviewers alike to turn away from a game very soon.
  • In computer games, non-configurable user controls or usage of console-like limitations.

Gameplay

  • Non-intuitive gameplay. In general, games where it is not clear almost immediately what a player must do are heavily criticized, when it doesn't fit the themes of the game.
  • Repetitive and unoriginal gameplay.
  • Having a very limited number of stages, objectives and goals.
  • Having a large (even infinite) number of mostly randomly generated or repeating levels with little or no variation in gameplay. This was a quite common "feature" for many early 8-bit games, especially on game consoles.
  • Excessive or, on the converse, minimal difficulty.
  • In certain types of games, lack of a save game feature or having a restricted functionality, e.g. limited number of saves, use of methods such as checkpoints or a password on a PC game perfectly capable of saving, etc. There are several exceptions to this that were well received, one of the most prominent being the game Halo: Combat Evolved.

Graphics

  • Graphics not up to the capabilities of contemporary hardware. This parameter is heavily correlated with technical evolution, industry standards, and programming techniques. For example: Xbox like graphics in an Xbox360 game, or PS1 graphics in an PS2 game.
  • Graphics not up to the standards set up by competing products. For example, on the Amstrad CPC platform, it was common to witness two extremes in equally priced games: some of them had colourful smooth-scrolling graphics, while many others had both monochrome, ZX Spectrum-like graphics and poor scrolling.
  • Bad taste or elements of kitsch in graphics, such as bad colour choices, badly drawn images, or elements of dubious taste.
  • Games originally played in 2 dimensions that have been restructured into 3 dimensions. Adding a third dimension may make gameplay worse by forcing the addition a new mechanic that does not integrate well with the old style.

Sound

  • Sound effects and music not up to the capabilities of a given system or hardware, as with graphics.
  • Sound effects and music not up to the standards set by competing products.
  • Improper choice of music and/or sound effects, or even a lack thereof.
  • Bad quality samples or speech (where applicable), or a lack thereof.
  • Irritating music and/or sound effects, such as excessively high-pitched or unpleasant music.
  • Bad voice acting, where either acting or casting is poor.

Physics and in-game mechanics

  • In games where it is important, e.g. RTS games, buggy pathfinding is considered to be bad.
  • In driving and racing games, extremely unrealistic or extremely realistic controls and physics may be considered good or bad depending on the players' expectations and whether the game presents itself as a "realistic simulator" or an "extreme arcade" game. Note that poorly implemented physics and controls can actually make driving in a game harder than a real-world vehicle would; for example, many driving games lack automatic steering wheel recovery.
  • Failure to implement physics and mechanics that are considered standard for the game's genre and industry trends at the time of release. For example, in most FPS games the ability to jump, freely looking and aiming around as well as the presence of gravity, falling damage, player-background interaction etc. were generally considered standard as far back as 1998, yet some titles which failed to meet these criteria have appeared since, earning caustic reviews.
  • In genres that require precise movements and actions, poor collision detection can result in a game that is nearly unplayable.

Marketing and public relations strategies

While it may appear absurd that marketing and public relations strategies behind a game can diminish its value down to the point of it being labelled as scarce or "worst ever", there are many documented cases where excessive, overconfident, or too risky marketing practices backfired.

  • Creating excessive hype and expectation around a game is a common market tactic, which can however backfire, especially when the product's release date is continuously delayed and the final product is not up to the created expectations when released. John Romero's infamous game Daikatana passed through various stages of aggressive hype and advertising, repeated release delays, quasi-vaporware status and was judged quite harshly when it was finally released, though not quite harshly enough to make this list.
  • Excessive zeal in defending one's work. This is the case of the (in)famous game developer Derek Smart, whose zeal in "defending" his games from criticism has led to long flame wars. Derek's filing of numerous lawsuits has biased the press and gamers against him, and a game by Derek Smart is likely to attract negative prejudice.
  • Republishing an old game as a "new" one will almost surely trigger very negative reactions from the specialized press, which might sometimes even refuse to review the game properly. Examples include Olympic Hockey Nagano '98, which received a (mostly symbolic) 0.0 rating by IGN[41] just for being a slightly different edition of Wayne Gretzky Hockey. Things can get even worse when the republished game is based on a game having a negative reviews history, like the game Midnight Race Club: Supercharged which essentially is a better version of Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, which is considered a true legend of "worst ever" games.
  • Releasing incomplete or not thoroughly beta tested games, in hopes of meeting artificially imposed market deadlines. This creates the need for releasing major patches in a short time, and can even cause very negative reactions to the first, likely flawed versions of a game. It is unclear how an early release of an incomplete or flawed product has usually been seen as more "profitable" than releasing a more robust product later, but there are documented cases throughout video gaming history, and are more frequent on personal computer games than on game consoles and during recent years (mid 1990s and onwards) than the earlier videogaming periods.

Karate on the atari 2600

i think this game should certenly be on this list. it has teribble and i mean teribble gameplay. you cant even tell if you are actually hitting your opponent. the game plays extreamly sloooooooooow and the fighters are very very blocky. ugh just thinking about that game makes me want to crush the cartridge! do any of you agree? the video game critic site gave the game an f- and the reviewers at gamefaqs gave the game a 2 out of 10 Touth 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This game is very bad, and it scores high in other similar lists on the 'net. --Lomedae 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

pac-man

"only one ghost out at a time" ? false. I had the game, there are 4 ghosts. The reason only 1 ghost ever appears on screenshots is that the 4 ghosts were displayed alternatively, one per frame.

  • Therefore, as there is only one ghost every frame there is only on ghost at a time. therefore the statement is right. --El cid the hero 22:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The statement is right, but it seems ambiguous. AMHR285 (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Halo 2?

Just a heads up, but someone snuck Halo 2 into the list without anything to back it up. Remedy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanate (talk • contribs)

Solution: Delete it. Ladlergo 22:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep. It was vandalism. I saw another person just say "Halo 2 suxs" in the D section. Fortunately, as I was about to delete it, someone else already did.guitarhero777777 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


2 more suggested titles

Trespasser, which is a no-brainer addition, and Star Wars: Rebellion, which may garner some debate from hardcore SW fans. But trust me, it was awful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.147.213 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but that is just original research, which can't be included in Wikipedia. However, if you find a reliable source (like IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, CNN, etc) stating those games are between the worst ever, feel free to add a paragraph in the article including the URL for the critics. -- ReyBrujo 05:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Pointless article?

This article could never conform to Wikipedia guidelines regarding neutrality, as what one person might perceive as a "worst ever computer game" might be considered by someone else to be much better. This article is also just asking for vandalism, as anyone with a particular dislike of any computer game would find it very tempting to add it here.

How about you look at the discussions there have already been to delete it.JackSparrow Ninja 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has been the target of vandalism already and yes the neutrality issue. However, by adding the sources and nominating games, this article can be as close to neutral as possible.guitarhero777777 16:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it has a point, else we should delete all "major failures in X" and "X considered the worst ever" lists, where X can stand for music, movies, videogames, and a lot of other things. And yeah, there might be people who enjoy Thundra, Bokosuka Wars or Atari 2600 Pac Man, as well as people who enjoy 3rd rate B-movies or 80s Greek videotrash, yet in the case of the movies that will still keep them in the "considered to be the worst ever" category. It's what gives them glamour, in some way. EpiVictor 20:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The article can still be neutral if we say "This game got a lot of negative reviews" as this is a true fact. Savager 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename: List of Infamous Video Games --Macarion 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

@Savager: providing a number of credible reviews is one of the prerequisites for including a game (although exceptions on the number of references can be made if it's hard to find reviews, e.g. a certain game being too obscure or too old). @ Macarion: if this list is renamed, then other, related ones must be renamed too. Either we use one naming convention for all such lists "Stuff X considered to be the worst ever" (Where "Stuff X"= Movies, Music, Videogames...) or we adopt the "Infamous (examples?) of Stuff X" convention. But adopting different weights and measures for each case seems a) POV and b) Poor practice, going against any uniformation process that may be active in wikipedia. EpiVictor 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Link: The Faces of Evil

How come Link: The Faces of Evil isn't on this list? I'm sure it's as much hated as it's counterpart Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.20.19 (talk • contribs) .

Well, it's mentioned along with the Gamelon game... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fortress of Dr Radiaki

I'm starting a collection of the Worst videogames ever, and I miss on these lists some serious contenders as "Fortress of Dr. Radiakis" and "Heroes of the Lance", which many critics include on their personal "worst of" series. DrJones 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Fortress of Dr. Radiaki didn't get bad enough reviews to be included on this list. PC Gamer gave it an 81 / 100. But I think that Nerves of Steel, which is from the same developers, should be put on the list. Spartan 234 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Genre and platform criteria

"Some game genres fade in and out of popularity, or are not particularly welcome by reviewers on a particular gaming system. For example, 2D shooters or platform games are considered as "out of fashion", at least regarding the gaming industry and the latest gaming hardware, and thus any such new release by a major manufacturer, even in some cases for a modern handheld system, would probably bias most professional reviewers negatively merely on the basis of being a 2D shooter or platform game. Similarly, PC ports of games or genres considered more appropriate to game consoles often receive negative reviews, and most reviewers consider good console ports to be the exception rather than the rule."

This is a joke to say, most certainly with the incredible succes of games like New Super Mario Bros, Yoshi's Island 2 and the Paper Mario games. JackSparrow Ninja 22:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice that the paragraph contains the words "on a particular gaming system". This means that such games (2D shooters etc.) may still find some success niches on portable systems or in some special cases, such as the Metal Slug series on many platforms, but otherwise it's considered a "dead" genre, I've even seen 1996 reviews bashing platform games on the PC (such as some early windows 95 releases of "Sonic the hedgehog", "Jazz Jackrabbit 2" and "Donald: in Cold Shadow"), almost like there was a deliberate plan to "declare" 2D game obsolete, especially in an era (mid 90s) where 3D games were starting to gain ground on the PSX but on the PC also. And, BTW, the examples you provided are all Mario games, presumably only available on Nintendo systems (DS? GBA?) so of course they're well-received, given the target platform, but I doubt Nintendo would release a fully 2D game for e.g. the Nintendo Wii... EpiVictor 22:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You had that spaceshooter for the Dreamcast, later ported to the GameCube. The Paper Mario games were on N64 (fully 3D platform) and GameCube. And there's the Radius series on the PlayStation 2, to name just a few. JackSparrow Ninja 02:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If this wasn't wikipedia, I would normally make myself a paladin of 2D games and the "good old way" videogames were made...but the fact is that this kind of gaming met its peak in the early-to-mid 90s (with the SNK Neo Geo and the CapCom System 1 and 2 being the ultimate arcade 2D machine), but somehow this approach didn't work well on home computers (PCs) and consoles (Saturn, PSX). It may sound like a paradox, but by the mid 90's crude-to-decent 3D graphics (like those of the first PSX and Saturn, and yes, even the N64) were preferred and arguably technically more feasible than high-quality 2D graphics. On the PC, 3D gaming had dawned since 1993 (Doom...), and platforms that couldn't keep up with either 3D or memory-intensive 2D graphics slowly died (Amiga, most 16-bit era consoles, with the exception of portable consoles). Anyway, what I mean is that a combination of technical limitations (and choices, to some extent) and marketing hype (for 3D graphics at any cost) effectively shifted the gaming industry to 3D, with the only surviving niches being arcade games, strategy games on the PC, freeware/public domain games, and of course portable consoles, but even those are starting to live the same changes that occured to console/PC gaming 10 years ago. So yeah, there might still be the occasional 2D game hitting the top now and then (usually tied to a well-estabilished franchise like Mario or Sonic, and with plenty of marketing to back it up) but I doubt we will ever see an "arcade platform revival" or a new line of multi-parallax-scrolling platform games (not emulations), not even in a combination of 2D or 3D, unless some marketing hype says so. EpiVictor 21:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about we discuss games

I see a lot of games being removed lately, but when they are brought to the talk page for discussion, no one discusses it. That doesn't really work like that, so something needs to be done. Either we start discussing a game to have it removed, or we actually discuss it. JackSparrow Ninja 20:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

if I might make a suggestion, perhaps we need a sub-page for the nomination process. That way it would be simpler to co-ordinate the large number of nominations this page has recently received (most likely due to it being linked by high traffic sites). El cid the hero 12:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I honestly try to comment on every game, but usually I can't get around to it. We need more members being active in he discussion.guitarhero777777 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't expect everyone to discuss things, but then don't interfere with the main page either. You can't go and say, discuss it first, and then don't discuss it. If you remove something from the main page, then discuss it when the item is put on the talk page. JackSparrow Ninja 20:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)