Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 11

Inclusion criteria
Are there any? Or should we set any up? It seems like people just add any old game that has a low Metacritic rating. Some of this stuff, like Final Fantasy: All the Bravest really are notable for bad reception (in this case, terrible use of in-app purchases.) Some of these other entries though, like Fast and Furious: Showdown or Family Party: 30 Great Games Obstacle Arcade...yeah, they got bad reviews, but are they really known for being one of the worst games ever? It just seems like, if we don't define it a little better, someone could, for example, easily go about looking at the lowest 50 PS3 games ever created and slam them all on there, and there really wouldn't be a reason to deny it... Sergecross73  msg me  02:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Case in point: that Fast and Furious game doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article as far as I can tell. Is it really one of the most notable bad reception games? Sergecross73   msg me  02:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, so it seems that no one's really monitoring this page, or caring that much. I think I'll probably try to establish some inclusion criteria, and clean up the article some. Not entirely sure what yet, but it should take more than just some bad to mediocre review scores to place it on the list. The games should probably receive special coverage for being top worst games in some respect. Or have really low review commentary stating its one of the worst in the reviews. Sergecross73   msg me  02:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have this article on my watch list. And I'm all for a criteria. Might as well get this place cleaned up and look presentable. GamerPro64  02:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bro, you're claiming nonexistence to the people who were just talking about it a few days ago. lol. Anyway, yeah, a candidate needs to have a Wikipedia article, and it needs to have a cross section of WP:N and poor reception.  So amongst the game's primary notability criteria, its poor reception must be key; and at least three RSes need to say so.  That's my assessment of what's logical, and I would also suggest double checking other, similar lists for the inclusion criteria or for some specific examples. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, I suppose you're right. But anyways, yes, having any article/meeting WP:N is a good base. It needs to be notable before it can be notable for negative reception. I like the idea of something like 3 RS's being required, that's good, but how do we define these 3 RS's as far as what they need to be? Is it enough that its just 3 negative RS's? Or should it be like 3 RS's saying that a game is "the worst" to some capacity? I think it needs to be stronger than just 3 negative RS's. I mean, someone could probably scrounge up 3 negative reviews for something like Skyward Sword, a game that was a little divisive but largely well received. And should we factor in Metacritic scores? Should it be less than 50%? Less? Not a factor? (Just brainstorming.) Sergecross73   msg me  03:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow me to delurk here and interject -- I think the page title is pretty clear -- "notable for negative reception". Games that are not just negatively recieved, but are really NOTED as being in the catgory of steaming piles. Something like "top ten worst of the year" certainly shouldn't qualify. I think it should really lean toward games that are truly notoriously bad (E.T. and Pac-Man, Action 52, Big Rigs, Shaq Fu, etc) or cases like Alien: Colonial Marines where there was just a huge clusterfuck over it all. Games that people remember for being notoriously bad, not ones that were just a blips - does anyone care about Family Party: 30 Great Games Obstacle Arcade or MindJack? They got panned at the time, people shruged and played other stuff. Really, I never understood why this page was at its title and not something similar to List of films considered the worst. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Melodia, you just apparently contradicted yourself, saying that this page title is pretty clear but that you don't know why it exists. So to clarify, it's because of the fact that this title is correct, whereas "List of films considered the worst" is a clumsy, illogical, and unencyclopedic title which should be corrected to be just like this one.  Yes, "notable for negative reception" is clear, where my explanation above served only to expound upon it — not to redefine it.  Serge, I consider Metacritic scores to be completely irrelevant as a source or criterion, though it could be mentioned as a subject of interest.  "Notable for negative reception" is necessarily original research and thus it's a gravely deliberate and unique distinction, so it should be produced by a reliable human source, like a court judgment.  That's my general view of Metacritic.  It's not a source; it's meta!  :)  Furthermore, even the "notable for negative reception" criterion is subject to bias (where Wikipedia describes primary sources rather than the ultimately objective truth) because E.T. is not in fact an inherently bad game, but it is nonetheless known as being bad.  It is a black sheep of a decades-old mass media echo chamber, which has been amplified by cheap "top ten worst games" lists and famous quips.  It is mainly considered bad by association.  That is the association with Atari's disastrous business practices and a major stock market crash, followed by vague historical revisionism.  So, E.T. is significantly a snowballing case of "blame the victim" and "history is written by the victors".  I have read in the game's Talk page, that it is not notable for bad reception, upon its actual release; so it got labeled as being bad, by a quasi-automated social process that we don't want to be a part of. But it does meet the criterion, so we must include it. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've gathered from reading some of the talk page, it appears the article was titled this way to distinguish it from video games that were considered the worst more on moral grounds, or "controversies" rather than receiving terrible reviews from critics. I'm neutral on renaming the article, but I think it'd be easier to address this once inclusion criteria are in place and the article is cleaned up.
 * I don't think Metacritic is all that important either, but the industry clearly values it (there's examples ofcompanies consulting it, and making examples off of it.) I just though it could help keep off game's that really aren't that bad, but get a lot of heat. (ie, if Final Fantasy 15, of which has been development for 10 years, and gets 60's at MC. It would be a devastating result for the company, but ultimately probably not enough to put it on the list. That sort of thing...though I could be trying to solve problems that may never arise either.)
 * I fully agree with as far going for games with truly bad reputation, like E.T., etc, and not these cheap bargain bin cash in games like Spongebob's Party, where no one ever expected it to be good and it wasn't really widely reviewed or bashed. I was just trying to come up with a little more concrete/objective definition of that.  Sergecross73   msg me  14:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with as far going for games with truly bad reputation, like E.T., etc, and not these cheap bargain bin cash in games like Spongebob's Party, where no one ever expected it to be good and it wasn't really widely reviewed or bashed. I was just trying to come up with a little more concrete/objective definition of that.  Sergecross73   msg me  14:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft
This can be revised/changed/whatever, I'm just trying to organize my thoughts.
 * 1) Title must have own article. (Must be notable to be notable for negative reception.)
 * 2) Having a Metacritic above 50, or multiple reviews above 50%, should discount a title from being included.
 * 3) Having a particular issue/controversy should help a game stay on the list. (The story behind E.T, the atrocious IAPs in Final Fantasy: All the Bravest, etc.)
 * 4) Game should not be obscure/bargain bin/cheap cash in game that no one ever had any expectations for to begin with - non-notable licensed Spongebob games, one of a million mini-game compilations for the Wii, etc. (Could maybe use a more concrete definition.)

Leave me notes and I can revise it according to consensus. Sergecross73  msg me  13:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support this, mybe a criteria like must have been sold a X amount of times for point 4? Avono (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd fully support that if possible...but it can be really hard to find sales figures for a majority of video games. For whatever reason, the industry is rather secretive about that (opposed to film, where budget and sales are almost always known.) Maybe a certain number of (reliable source) reviews or something? Like, if you can't find 5/10/20 reviews for a game, it probably wasn't that noteworthy of a release? That may help, I know sites like IGN don't review every little cartoon cash-in that comes out. Sergecross73   msg me  14:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * number of reviews would be a good criteria because it would cover point one of WP:GNG but wouldn't having its own article fall onto this as well (i.e having significant coverage)? Maybe have number of reviews as a criteria for games which do not have their own article. Avono (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to tie Melodia's comment of "Games that are not just negatively recieved, but are really NOTED as being in the catgory of steaming piles." into WP:N and WP:RS, to build #3. It shouldn't be something that just helps or is even slightly optional; it should be the primary, required, defining criterion.  I mean that's literally the whole point of this list.  And like I said before, based on this, we need at least three RSes saying this, in order to even have a case to state. That's what would make it comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic concept. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - I agree with you, I think I was just trying to make a little bit different point with #3 - I was more just saying that it would be more likely to included if there was a particular problem/controversy honed in on by RS's. All the Bravest was its IAPs. Custers Revenge was its ludicrous and offensive premise. Other games, like that Superman, was just more or less a bad game. Superman definitely warrant inclusion, as a lot of sources talk about how bad it is. It was more along the lines to help people see if they're on the right track. (Similar to how the points of WP:BAND or WP:NALBUMS work. Sergecross73   msg me  16:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's all correct, so therefore that's what #3 should say, but it doesn't. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - True, there would be some overlap, but there'd be differences. Not having an article could be a "quick fail", but then someone could throw together a sloppy 3 source article that could barely squeek by an WP:AFD, and then argue "Okay, now put it on". Point #4 could be set at a higher level (The GNG usually requires 3-4 sources, we could say like 6-8) and point #4 would require that all the sources would have to be negative reception type coverage as well. Sergecross73   msg me  16:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well what I wanted to say is that there might be games which are notable for their negative reception but haven't gotten an article jet (or are only notable for their negative reception). We shouldn't exclude games just because no article exits because wikipedia can't cover infinite topics. Avono (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a pretty active video game community though. My thought was just that, if an article hasn't even been created yet, its probably not notorious enough to be considered on of the worst received games of all time. For example, when I first read about Takeshi no Chōsenjō a year or two back, I thought it would be fun to create an article on it. I looked it up and saw that it had been created long ago. It's because it's that level of bad, which is what we're looking for in this list. Sergecross73   msg me  17:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "We shouldn't exclude games just because no article exits because wikipedia can't cover infinite topics." Yes, we should.  That's precisely what we should do.  And it's not just because of the fact that we can't cover infinite topics but because we can't cover non-notable subjects.  Even if the article *wasn't* actually titled "list of notable stuff". — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK,maybe have an exception clause then where games without articles can be proposed on the talk page (probably will never happen but it will at least allow editors to be bold) Avono (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the whole thing collectively could have a "when in doubt, bring it to the talk page" for questions or exceptions and whatnot. Sergecross73   msg me  17:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_worst - I do like that one of their requirements is to have at least one WP:RS literally call it one of the worst games ever. I like that requirement, I believe it'll separate the "worst games ever" from the "games that didn't do that great with critics" - something they seem to emphasize and I have been trying to get at. Perhaps this thought could be combined with a point #5, which would be about what myself and have been saying where it should have 1 source saying its literally the worst, and X number of reviews providing significant coverage as to how bad it is. Sergecross73  msg me  17:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft 2

 * 1) Title must have own article. (Must be notable to be notable for negative reception.)
 * 2) Should have at least 5 reliable source review/top worst/retrospective sources covering the game very negatively in significant detail. At least one source should literally call it one of the worst games ever.
 * 3) Having a Metacritic aggregate score above 50, or many mainstream reviews above 50%, should discount a title from being included.
 * 4) Game should not be obscure/bargain bin/cheap licensed cash-in game that no one ever had any expectations for, and largely flew under the radar. (An example would be something like Nickelodeon Party Blast which was largely ignored by critics altogether.) Should have been reviewed by at least 10 [[WP:RS|reliable sources].
 * 5) Having a particular issue/controversy should help a game stay on the list. (See the the story behind E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) and the Atari video game burial as a strong example of this.)
 * Start discussion on talk page for any questions or proposed exceptions. Sergecross73   msg me  17:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is my final proposal, unless/until anyone objects, I'll be working on applying this to the article. Sergecross73  msg me  17:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about the removal of Air Control on the page. Mainly because there was consensus in its AfD to move it to here. GamerPro64  17:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Concerned? It's not even notable, period, let alone being appropriate here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.  It never should have existed here and is a non-issue. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out. Well, as Masem had said in that discussion, is there anywhere else it can redirect to? This was really the type of game that I was hoping to clear out of the list - the dime-a-dozen, lazy/amateur games that flood digital distribution these days, that really aren't all that well known for being awful. I mean, it was only formally reviewed by 2 websites as far as I can tell. (Only 1 was picked up on MC.) Sergecross73   msg me  18:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it'd have to be notable first! :) It's like WP:FANCRUFT wrapped back around to WP:ANTIFANCRUFT! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, I don't believe it should be on there either, I just don't want to be enforcing my own proposal, in effect as of minutes ago, with an iron fist yet. :) Sergecross73   msg me  18:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean concerned on whether or not it will cause a big stink for some people not seeing it. But I guess since it was pretty much a flavor of the day type of bad game, I guess it won't be much of an issue seeing it excluded. GamerPro64  18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, lets see if anyone really cares. I didn't read it as editors being super-passionate about that choice, but rather them not really knowing where to put it. Sergecross73   msg me  18:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, caring doesn't override being myopically mistaken about the concept of the encyclopedia. WP:FANCRUFT The process was rather incorrectly executed, and should have resulted in simple deletion.  So fortunately, it serves as a freshly poignant example by which to refine people's understanding of what is encyclopedic and what this list is WP:NOT.  And I filed speedy deletion upon its redirection.  By the way, Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is a good example of an anti-game or an un-game.  lol.  That is a game which is not merely ill-conceived, or which its developer and publisher expected to do well; but which is not actually a viable game (or is a prototype of a game) but was sold regardless of its obviously nonfunctional state.  It's effectively a scam.  Maybe it's worth mentioning that as a descriptive text of the types of items in the inclusion criteria.  Also, I wonder if we should set up some auto-inclusion text blocks (at least a descriptive stub) for List of commercial failures in video gaming.  Some titles such as E.T. are heavily cross-pollenated! :-D — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would being disowned by the creator of a game's corresponding IP and having a MC score of 32 (see The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct) count as being significantly "bad" enough? ViperSnake151   Talk  01:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd think so. Postal III was kinda like that as well so if the creators of the game also hated the game, that must be saying something. GamerPro64  02:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't anything on the list that says "just kidding; of course you can personally contradict all the published encyclopedic criteria". We already said metacritic is not a criterion, and the author's personal sentiment is not a critical reception. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Action 52
I notice that this game keeps getting added only to be removed due to a lack of reliable sources. I was wondering if we could find enough reliable sources to add this game to the list again or have a FAQ as to why this game can't be added to this list? good888 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are enough reliable sources, then it could be added. If not...I think the "Inclusion Criteria" at the top of the page cover why just about any game isn't on here... Sergecross73   msg me  17:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Guise of the wolf & Bad Ratz
Dreadful Games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:C941:8000:794D:B976:F089:CC71 (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)