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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
To nominate a game for inclusion, it should meet certain criteria:
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.
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:
Please share your ideas and thoughts of this, this article can be made quite good! EpiVictor 11:59, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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]))
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’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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A terrible fighter on the Atari Jaguar. [7] [8] [9]
A terrible driving game on the Atari Jaguar. Ranked 2nd on Seanbaby's 20 Worst Games of All Time. [10] [11] [12] [13]
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)
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.
Like SNES version, i heard it was mediocre, not terrible. No ADD. guitarhero777777 22:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
An odd game designed to teach children about diabetes. [17], [18], [19]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It was one of the worst video games by many, so why can't we add this to the article?
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)
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)
As it appeared in the recently added and removed entry:
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)
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)
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:
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)
As it was removed for not being discussed, hereby...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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]
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)
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.
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)
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.:
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)
I can't believe this doesn't mention E.T. -- signed, your friendly neighbourhood catgirl collector Kyoufu Kawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.236.101 ( talk) 21:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC) This needs serious cleanup, akin to the list of Movies considered the worst ever, i.e. if it doesn't have some SERIOUS claim to it, like Nintendo of America THEMSELVES admitting that "Bebe's Kids" was one of the worst games they ever made, then it should be dropped. E.T. is a definite contender, though. -HX 19:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I´ve added a template to the article because it doesn´t cites enough sources and thus lacks verifiabilty. Still, I don´t believe the article should be deleted. Doidimais Brasil 00:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Hooperx, where are you finding such information? Dariustriplet 01:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
Uncertain, left for time being
People - this is not a dumping ground for your hate of games you've bought. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 21:26, 7 January 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)
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)
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)
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.
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."
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)
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)
lame name change. so weak WookMuff 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.”
A note to all editors: |
using this as a base we could create something like this
A note to all editors: |
would this be a good idea? El cid the hero 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
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?
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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.
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)
this talk page is now 84KB in size. is it time to archive it? El cid the hero
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:
Failing a consensus, I suggest a platform listing.-- Kenn Caesius 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
i would support somthing along this line El cid the hero 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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).
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.
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)
"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.
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)
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) .
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.
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)
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) .
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
To nominate a game for inclusion, it should meet certain criteria:
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.
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:
Please share your ideas and thoughts of this, this article can be made quite good! EpiVictor 11:59, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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]))
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’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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A terrible fighter on the Atari Jaguar. [7] [8] [9]
A terrible driving game on the Atari Jaguar. Ranked 2nd on Seanbaby's 20 Worst Games of All Time. [10] [11] [12] [13]
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)
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.
Like SNES version, i heard it was mediocre, not terrible. No ADD. guitarhero777777 22:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
An odd game designed to teach children about diabetes. [17], [18], [19]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It was one of the worst video games by many, so why can't we add this to the article?
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)
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)
As it appeared in the recently added and removed entry:
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)
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)
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:
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)
As it was removed for not being discussed, hereby...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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]
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)
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.
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)
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.:
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)
I can't believe this doesn't mention E.T. -- signed, your friendly neighbourhood catgirl collector Kyoufu Kawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.236.101 ( talk) 21:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC) This needs serious cleanup, akin to the list of Movies considered the worst ever, i.e. if it doesn't have some SERIOUS claim to it, like Nintendo of America THEMSELVES admitting that "Bebe's Kids" was one of the worst games they ever made, then it should be dropped. E.T. is a definite contender, though. -HX 19:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I´ve added a template to the article because it doesn´t cites enough sources and thus lacks verifiabilty. Still, I don´t believe the article should be deleted. Doidimais Brasil 00:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Hooperx, where are you finding such information? Dariustriplet 01:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
Uncertain, left for time being
People - this is not a dumping ground for your hate of games you've bought. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 21:26, 7 January 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)
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)
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)
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.
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."
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)
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)
lame name change. so weak WookMuff 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.”
A note to all editors: |
using this as a base we could create something like this
A note to all editors: |
would this be a good idea? El cid the hero 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
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?
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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.
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)
this talk page is now 84KB in size. is it time to archive it? El cid the hero
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:
Failing a consensus, I suggest a platform listing.-- Kenn Caesius 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
i would support somthing along this line El cid the hero 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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).
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.
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)
"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.
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)
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) .
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.
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)
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) .
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)