Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 1
 | This article was nominated for deletion on Sept 23, 2005. The result of the discussion was No consensus, keep. |
Title & contents change/addition proposal, please read
As it has been suggested many times, and it would potentially solve many controversies, why not name the article something like "List of controversial videogames", as the word "controversy" also appears right in the first lines of the article. And, since "controversial" does not mean "worst ever", it would greatly reduce any subjectivities the latter term implies.
About the contents: the article could include, like it actually does now, games that are simply "controversial" for a reason or another: e.g. clamorous flops, kitsch games, REALLY bad games, racist/controversial games, and adopt a labeling scheme which should be added before or after each game's description, briefly caractherizing the game according to its status as this can be traced down by e.g. autoritative review sources or "univeral consensus", and will help disambiguate between "worst ever" or merely "controversial" games.
Some examples of this:
- E.T. could have the labels commercial flop, poorly made, considered worst ever.
- Wonder Momo could have the labels unusual humour, usually ridiculed.
- Ethnic Cleansing could have the labels racist contents, poorly made.
- Daikatana: could be, quite safely, be labeled as clamorous flop, vaporware and mediocre or below expectations.
Please share your ideas and thoughts of this, this article can be made quite good! EpiVictor 11:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Again, good idea, and a bit less subjective, but then you could only include games that were controversial. You could create a seperate article for games that didn't fare well commercially or critically, but you could NOT do a page on the Wikipedia that ranks games based on people's opinions. This is not the place for it; there are many places elsewhere where you can post opinions and reviews - the Wikipedia is NOT for opinions and reviews. Any articles with 'considered' or 'poor' or 'mediocre', or anything that isn't simply a statement of verifiable fact. --DarrenBaker 17:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hopelessly POV
There is absolutely no way that this article should be on the WikiPedia in its current form. It is interminably POV, and needs serious work to make it NPOV. I think we should rename and revamp it so it is either 'List of commercially unsuccesful video games' and/or 'List of controversial video games'. This article is simply indefensible in its current form. --DarrenBaker 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Saying it's just "POV" is just too convenient, please provide some concrete arguments or counterexamples about specific games or listing criteria instead of a generic label. Also, you could very well expand the first section of the article, "Criticism of the concept" in a way similar to List_of_films_that_have_been_considered_the_worst_ever. It is a FACT that there are bad games out there, people dedicate them websites (even cults, if you prefer) and there is no acceptable "official" game reviewing method. Game reviewers themself are seldom considered "NPOV", but, as stated in the article, the do have the power to alter a game's fate. EpiVictor 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know that's rather vague, but the thing is that this idea is wholly subjective. The idea of 'bad'... Why is it bad? Sales? Gameplay? Content? Who decides? If a bunch of sources poorly review a video game, then that game should be in an article entitled 'List of poorly reviewed video games', along with the various sources. 'List of video games considered the worst ever' sounds like a list someone made in their notebook at the age of twelve. --DarrenBaker 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, that subjectivity matter is indeed a thorn in the side for the article's credibility, yet I believe it can be turned into a very informative article if enough people cooperate. Maybe we should call for a peer review or settle some standards for citing sources and possibly playtesting. I currently do much of the article's maintenance myself and try to personally seek sources and review games in order to verify their allegged "badness". I've also toned down, deleted or commented out a few undocumented or unverifiable (for now) additions, but we could use some "official" standards for reviewing and sourcing, and, first of all, a team of people willing to do some research and perhaps improve the writing style of the article. EpiVictor 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestions, the only problem is that they don't help the fact that the article would still be unrepentantly subjective. WikiPedia isn't a source for original research, so playtesting and personal reviews would only make it worse. What this article needs is to be renamed and seriously, seriously revamped. I suggest the new name be something along the lines of List of commercially and critically unsuccessful video games, and have various sources for each game. Ideally, this should actually be a WikiPedia category, and the sources added to the individual video game articles themselves, but I fear that the majority of the people editing, watching, and voting to keep this article don't 'get' the idea behind the WikiPedia, and would do well to read What Wikipedia is not. There are any number of places on the internet this could be taken, since it doesn't belong here in its current form. --DarrenBaker 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Game "nominations"
In order to make this list more objective, I suggest that we nominate games for future inclusion in the list here in this section of the talk page, possibly providing a brief "reason" for inclusion as well as some links for all to evaluate, and then decide.
OK, here goes:
White Men can't jump
Horribly looking "street basketball" game for the Atari Jaguar, it seems that its only contribution to humanity was popularizing the pseudo-slang hardcore phrases "BANGIN'UP THE HIGH HANDLE HOMEY BEEF" and "DOWNSTREET ON THE FLIP FLOP TIME PANTS", at least judging from this review [1]. I haven't been able to test it myself, can anybody confirm it?
I don't understand how anyone could feel comfortable putting a game they've never even seen or played on a "worst ever" list...boggles the mind!
- In fact, I only proposed it, not included it because I haven't played it and could not back up Seanbaby's review in any way. EpiVictor 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok...my bad then- that'll teach me to read through things a bit closer next time- sorry about that!
Curtis J.
I have the game and have spent quite a few hours playing it. It's not nearly as bad as "Seanbaby" and his foul mouthed "review" make it out to be. Notice that there is absolutely nothing about gameplay or control in his review? That alone would makes me seriously question whether he ever actually played the game. But actually I don't even have to ask that question since his outrageous claims of it screaming ridiculously silly phrases like the ones mentioned above are blatantly false. (Nor does it even display text of anything even remotely resembling those phrases!) The guy must either be insane or a liar...'''''
- Aww, pity, I was eager to actually hear "BANGIN'UP THE HIGH HANDLE HOMEY BEEF" being yelled :-) EpiVictor 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha! If those phrases really were in there the game would be a *must own* strictly for the comedy factor! ;)
Curtis J.
Is WMCJ a great game? Certainly not! But is it one of the worst of all time? Hardly! Just another run of the mill game lost in the avalanche of other average games for any number of systems.
Curtis J.
- Ok, so that definitively doesn't get listed...yet. EpiVictor 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Most Wisdom Tree games
They are generally very ridiculed, and the few that I've played are bland titles with laughable premises at best [2][3] (e.g. in Spiritual warfare you practically are a zealot forcibly "redeeming" people).
Most Atari Jaguar games
Ugh...well check these out yourself, besided the Jaggy is renowned for its poor third party sub-par games. [4][5][6].
Wow! Yet more heresay...and again based on comments originating from "Seanbaby". Why am I not surprised?
Ok, I'll be the first to admit that the Jaguar had it's share of sub-par games, but it also had some true gems: Alien Vs. Predator, Tempest 2000, and BattleSphere for example. Those games (among others) have been the subject of near universal praise even from sources that normally tend to see the Jaguar system in a negative light. The citing of three dubious (at best!) "reviews" (which read more like rants!), from a single obviously biased source is hardly sufficient evidence to categorize most Jaguar games as among the "worst ever". (Even considering the rather small library of games available for that system, those 3 games still only amount to less than 5% of the games available!) I own or have owned literally dozens of consoles systems over nearly three decades now & I don't see any glaring difference in the "good/bad" game ratio between Jaguar and just about any other system I've ever played extensively. Just my 2 cents...
Curtis J.
Virtuoso
Apparently, a poor 3DO clone of Revolution X, which was a clamorous flop itself[7].
FMV games from the mid-90's
This period and that kind of games are regarded by some players as a "dark period" in PC gaming, where some manufaturers though they could get away by selling "games" made up of pixelated video footage, or where FMV scenes were the dominant content. Many Quicktime windows-based games like Maabus were released during this period, generally scoring very low on reviews, especially compared to "true" games like Doom or Quake. There were of course exceptions like Under a killing moon but that was a success because it DID NOT rely primarily on FMV for gameplay.
it was given 2.9 by gamespot, 2/10 by IGN and 2.3/10 by gameFAQs. should this get a mention in the article? (El cid the hero 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC))
- Hmm...seems this is a good example of a bad game: it is based on a hyped musical group (hence the "official products/brands make bad games" stereotype gets boosted), it is an inferior copy of a previous successful game (Parappa the rapper), vain marketing ploy elements...yes, that's definitively the sort of game that gets brought as an example of bad game design. EpiVictor 16:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
What's this list about, after all?
Let's face it people, there ARE bad games out there, although with different degrees of flawed content or technical implementations, and some controversy around the concept itself e.g.:
- why are mostly console/commercial games targetted, when there are tons of rock-bottom ugly shareware, java and flash games out there?
- Why are there not "official" reviewers?
The article should provide an explanation for these matters also, IMHO, which would be much better than labelling it as NPOV or deleting it.
I generally only list a videogame here if I can pinpoint at least two sources about it being "bad" or "bizzare", and if I can I proceed to a personal verification/review with an emulator or real copy of the game.
Please note that not all of the games listed here are necessarily horrible Atari 2600 title a-la E.T. or Pacman, and some aren't even "bad games" in the sense of unplayable but merely too bizzare or obscure, or just controversial on their own e.g. Ethnic Cleansing.
Perhaps we could change the title to include not only "worst" videogames, but also those controversial or simply bizzare (Hard Head) or known for something other than their value as a game (e.g. Zero Wing).EpiVictor 11:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the word 'infamous' should somehow be put into the title rather than 'worst' --Headcase 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- The problem is those games are usually "hosted" under articles with the words "worst ever" in their title, so at least a redirect from "worst games ever" or similars should be kept. Other than that, the title could indeed be changed in order to indicate controversy, bizzarry or "infamousness"...well..however "List of most infamous videogames" or "considered to be infamous" doesn't quite cut it IMHO...any ideas on how to better express this? EpiVictor 11:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Older subjects
I don't dislike the general idea of this page - in the same way that popular games of the past stand out in ones (and in people's collective) memory, so to do true stinkers. However, I'm not sure how this article could be anything but a buried link from a game related page, as opposed to something you could easily and consciously search for.
I feel like I need to defend the author a bit, on the relative dearth of references. The deeper into the mists of game history we go, the less material I think is to be found that can act as reference material: bad games are a kind of amorphous counter culture camp issue. As well, the occasional "top ten worst games ever" stories that appear on large, bland game news sites generally tend to focus on somewhat recent games (that is, this author's inclusion of the old E.T. game is something that would never happen elsewhere despite being one of the ultimate crappy games).
The topic in general is vague, but still very real: it's not bad games per se that is the issue, but bad games that had a lot of visibility. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call this topic something along the lines of "spectacularly failed games" or "game hype/overhype" etc.
In this way of thinking, Daikatana really is a good model for this: at the time Daikatana came out, there were certainly other games that were just as bad, or worse. It was the overselling/hype of the game that made it universally derided. We don't remember things like this due only to their poor quality, but instead remember them with disaste for the associated hype, which created something that brutally failed to live up to the hype (with big budget movies sometimes falling into this category).
If we look at this idea as the heart of this article, then I think we have something worth keeping which catalogues the best examples of a hyped game turning out to be spectacularly not worth the fuss that preceeded it. (anon, Oct 1 2005) Finally started an account, so: Dxco 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the neutrality dispute can be resolved by adding ratings from magazines and the like. At least it won't seem like one person's opinion. Also the title could be worded better (maybe "List of bad videogames"?). - Diceman 13:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that the page is fine the way that it stands. After all, the very title of it works in its favor. "Considered to be." It doesn't mean they are or they aren't (though E.T. definitely is), but due to the hype/overhype, poor quality, and general lacking attributes of the games, they deserve to be on this page. SmokerKat 10:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
revamp
this article needs to be revamped. games like big rigs, action 52 and atari pac man should be kept as they are widely considered flops but games like daikatna (sp) should be removed because it seems like opinion. --Phil 12:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
new rule that I think should be implemented, we don't list games arbitrarily, just like on other wikipedia "list" articles. a game should be "nominated" on the talk page (sources provided) and it will be added if it's decided it is credible to consider it a "horrible" game. take a look at List of films that have been considered the worst ever and you'll see what this article should be. just because there are no video game critics in the sense of people like roger ebert, doesn't mean video games cannot be considered bad in a NPOV way --Phil 19:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Olympic Hockey Nagano
Disagree with the following - the reason it was rated 0 was NOT because of gameplay, but because it was identical to an earlier title. That earlier title was itself rated a 7 - the reviewer simply objected to the rerelease of an earlier game with slight cosmetic changes. This page should be reserved for truly bad games, not ones that were rated poorly due to a technicality. By extension, this game would also be rated a 7, if it is identical to the original.
Olympic Hockey Nagano '98 (1998, N64) is the only game to have ever gotten 0.0/10 on IGN [34]. This is even worse than Extreme PaintBrawl, which got a 0.7/10 on the same site. It was heavily criticised for being exactly the same as another title, Wayne Gretzky Hockey '98, with the exception of a few new teams and a couple of color swaps. Even the cheat codes were identical.
- If that's the case, then please limit to removing the game from the list and providing an explanation - I already do so with games having no sources or being seriously doubted, using the POV tag is just breaking a delicate acceptance balance, which is already covered in the "Criticism of the concept" section of the article. EpiVictor 16:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Horrible article
What a horrid article this is.
While the principle of the article is fine, it seems to have become a load-off point for people to complain about games they don't like. Why exactly are "all" Amstrad CPC games lumped in here? The system was known as a poor gaming system, but there were a good number of games praised. I've made a start with cleaning out all the trash here, but it's going to take a while.
People, if you're going to include a game here, back it up. One review, or a couple of links from nn sites are not proof of a game's notoriety. A good point of reference (for recent games at least) is Gamespot's "other reviews" lists, which offer a summary of reviews on other sites.
I've only got to "E", but a few notes on what I've done:
Deleted
- Amstrad CPC - Games, not entire games systems, people.
- Avalon Hill's Squad Leader - Has received average, not bad reviews on GameSpot. Got 2 stars on Amazon.
- Bionic Commando (Amstrad CPC) - Got reasonable reviews in press.
- Blue Ice - Reviews I've seen were quite positive.
- Bravoman - Have seen nothing negative about the game.
- Wonder Momo - See above.
- Bubble Bobble - PlayStation version was widely praised, PC version was criticised as average, but not overly bad.
- Clayfighter 63 1/3 - Average reviews in general, Gamespot's seemed to be exception.
- GI Combat - lacked sources
Uncertain, left for time being
- Cyberbykes - Because I can't find justification either way
- Daikatana - Because of the controversy caused by Romero's outbursts, the delay and the disappointment caused. I'm tempted to wipe it because it was criticised as "nothing special" but didn't receive bad marks by any means.
- Drake of the 99 Dragons - All reviews are generally at most 2/10 or equivalent.
People - this is not a dumping ground for your hate of games you've bought. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 
21:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Jamyskis, the reason that some "not so horrible" games or whole categories appear is that some people (including myself) wanted to expand the article's contents to also include controversial games such as Ethnic Cleansing, or ridiculed games such as Wonder Momo/Zero Wing. Maybe then we should follow that ages-old advice of changing the article's title or splitting the article into a "worst ever" and a "controversial" games articles...just keep this in mind before proceeding with cleaning up. EpiVictor 12:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. The title is in itself misleading but there needs to be a focus for it. That these games are considered "bad " needs to be justifable though. Sources need to be provided, and from reputable gaming magazines or websites. GameSpot, IGN, PC Gamer, Edge Magazine are good examples, not some homemade site. Amstrad CPC games were not particularly great, I agree, but there is enough of a critical background and fan base to suggest that this wasn't a universal opinion.
- As a general rule, I've used GameSpot's list of available reviews, GameSpy's Worst Games Ever list and a quick Google search as a check to see if opinions of the games are generally despised. Controversial games such as Thrill Kill belong in a "controversial" section. Daikatana was controversial from its marketing and development, but by no means one of the worst games (it garnered around 5/10 on average in reviews). Most of the games I've removed seemed to be there simply on someone's whim with no background sources or justification. There wasn't a single game that could be called "controversial" that I deleted.
- There's enough games around that garner 1/10 across the board and have a general reputation for being appalling to create a sensible, objective article. WonderMomo was, as you say, ridiculed for its rather Japanese sense of humor, but I've seen little proof that it is considered bad, let alone one of the worst games ever. The site quoted was a homemade site that is of little quotable value. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs
20:45, 8 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)
Where's Timeline?
The game Timeline has to be here. It was both hated by all and a commercial faliure.80.178.164.73 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can hardly remember that game, so I cannot tell. But by the very few (one) reviews I was able to find it looks mostly like a commercial failure (based on a good book) but it does not meet the criteria for being called a "worst ever" game, it might be boring but not flawed or offensive in any other way. [8]. If you have sources supporting the opposite, please provide them. EpiVictor 20:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
3rd opinion
Hello. A WP:3O request was made on this entry, as to whether to keep it or not. My 3rd and outside opinion is to keep the list, POV though it may be, it can always be improved upon. ⇒ SWATJester 
Ready Aim Fire! 07:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm? But I thought the article already survived two deletion nominations, and was even subject to a third one which resulted in a "speedy keep" administrative action. Furthermore, the article now has grown, most references have been cleaned up, it has been linked to by outsiders, and, I believe, it's much more than just a list of worst ever games, by now. (In fact, it should have its name changed, but it's a tough step :-) Are there still doubts whether it should exist on wikipedia or not? EpiVictor 11:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are still doubts, since it's completely arbitrary and subjective, though people seem not to understand that. If the entries aren't supported only by POV edits, then they're supported by one or two John Q Public review pages which don't present facts. People are taking the reviews and presenting the subjective prose as fact, when in fact they should be presenting and citing quotations. For example, you can't say:
Superman 64 (1999, N64) is widely aknowledged as one of the worst games ever on the Nintendo 64. It mainly consists of flying through hoops.
- That is rife with weasel words and hearsay. You can say:
Superman 64 (1999, N64): According to Gamespy, "Gameplay is so terrible, the controls so unresponsive, and the graphics so foggy that the developer had to spin some silly backstory about Lex Luthor creating a 'virtual reality' Metropolis, since nothing this bad could possibly exist in the real world." Gamerankings.com has a game ranking of 21% based on 17 media outlet reviews, and Seanbaby.com wrote, "Superman looks a lot like a flying log in panties, and the entire world is covered in a dull green fog."
- Well, that's a bit that needs fixing....most other descriptions are not like this, I didn't write this one and neither checked it much, I must say.EpiVictor 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- The sources are bad, the idea of the article is at odds to the idea of the Wikipedia, and the people defending the article are defending the convenience of having it here, they are not defending the strength of the Wikipedia.
- While it is true that this article has survived three delete votes, remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Most people who edit the Wikipedia don't fully understand what is allowed and what isn't; Here's a simple test: Would you find this article in a printed encyclopaedia? --DarrenBaker 15:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, but you also wouldn't find Cho Aniki or Gals Panic or any other videogame related subject, for that matter, at least not in depth. On most printed encyclopaedias, videogames are still treated as a sort of unimportant trivium, and at most once can find generic historic info (mostly the story of Pong) and a quick glance at the evolution and that's it. Wikipedia is very different in this matter. Plus, I always thought the article was in spirit with the ones about "worst movies" and "worst music" ever. I know this counterargument might be moot however, since many of the wikipedians opposing this article also oppose those articles too.
- I believe that the "Criticism" section of the article does a fairly good job at making clear that there is no such thing as an "autoritative" or "academic" videogame reviewer, there is no school or university for becoming one and that more or less, reviews are either written by loosely "specialized" journalists, or even random "John Q Public" guys, EVEN ON PAPER MAGAZINES, that's right.
- So, does this means that no credit must be given to reviewers? Surely, a video game review is something very subjective, since there are no "official" reviewers, but those guys can decide a game's fate. If some "John Q Public" writing an article for e.g. PC Gamer writes an article which says that game X is bad and it gets published, then this article WILL have impact. The sources and references to game reviewing sites are included and used as a basis since there are no better sources for game reviews, and are surely known to have IMPACT over a game's destiny.
- Of course, things could be different if e.g. Britannica decided to hire "academic" game reviewers and publish a sort of "official, authoritative and undisputed" encyclopaedia of games...but does that mean that all articles based on actual third-party reviews (of anything) are not attendible? That would have tremendous repercussions (as a minimum) over all of Wikipedia's video gaming related articles, not just this one. EpiVictor 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I was just responding to the 3O request. Personally, as a prior game magazine editor (Strategy Player Magazine, now defunct), we have our own list of strategy games that were considered the "worst ever". So if any game is included an a reputable source's list of "worst games ever", shouldn't it be listed here? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- LOL don't worry, I wasn't "bashing" you in any way, I was in turn responding to other users' comment in this section. About your definition of a "reputable source", that seems to be exactly the problem with most detractors of this article. E.g. have you, as a game reviewer, been ever officially qualified or recognized as being one? Is there a sort of globally or even locally recognized "association of game reviewers" whose word is law? My guess is there isn't one, anywhere in the world...(but, to some extent, this applies to movie and music critics as well). However, by accepting the fact that there are no "better" sources than game reviewers/journalists for video game reviews/criticism, then yes, their opinions and "worst ever" lists should be included here too, of course by stating that they are the opinions of reviewer X on game Y, and not by presenting them as some sort of "ultimate truth". EpiVictor 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Official grouping? Of course not. We just need to find a consensus amongst this page as to what qualifies as to reputable. I do however recall there being a grouping of movie critics. Anyway, the qualifications and recognization of being a reviewer is de-facto as well as de jure....look up the published work, it's still out there. ⇒ SWATJester
Ready Aim Fire! 17:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Official grouping? Of course not. We just need to find a consensus amongst this page as to what qualifies as to reputable. I do however recall there being a grouping of movie critics. Anyway, the qualifications and recognization of being a reviewer is de-facto as well as de jure....look up the published work, it's still out there. ⇒ SWATJester
- That's exactly my point. The problem with both the title and the content of this article is that it presents opinion as fact. What it should be is a collection of games that were critically panned, and the title should be changed to something along the lines of List of critically unsuccessful video games, using quotes everywhere. --DarrenBaker 16:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, fair enough...although "converting" the entire article in this, let's say, format, will take some time, many entries will have to be rewritten, others removed, sources and quotations will have to be dug up, and new entries must be carefully screened. Oh well, I hope that at least the sections not referring to specific titles need less of a change. I will try to adhere to that format from now on, if it will help towards NPOV and acceptance.EpiVictor 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Image for the "C" section
Please don't lose all respect for me when I say this, but that game emotionally disturbed me, not that I've ever played it. Can we, at the very least, get a screenshot of one of the other bad games under "C"? I mean, I'm sure you could just follow the "Most Shameful Games" link if you're dumb enough to want to see a screenshot. (Of course, I didn't click on that for myself, because that'd be a mental death wish.) I think the Killer List of Videogames lets you use their caps for yourself if you credit them; I could be wrong, though. Darth Katana X 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ehm...do you mean that Custer's Revenge picture disturbed you, and it shouldn't appear normally? Uhm...well...that can be discussed. About the other "C" games....Cyberbykes already has a PD screenshot (yeah, it really looks like that) and a Cheetahmen 1/2 screeshot could be added, I guess...however wikipedia itself is not about morality or censorship, so maybe we could place a warning or an exposable picture or something. Need some feedback on this... 193.92.212.28 20:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- how about its a bunch of lame pixels? I honestly doubt anyone will be turned into a raving sex fiend from seeing that picture... if so, that person already has MAJOR issues WookMuff 22:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I vote for a Cheetahmen 1/2 picture. It wouldn't be censoring anything per se to put up a new screenshot. People would probably enjoy the page more if it didn't have nasty image in it (even if it's pixelated, it still is nasty). Darth Katana X 02:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Once you complained, removing the picture inquestion became censorship... BUT if you can find a good C-game pic then i won't complain... as long as you leave the pic on the custer's revenge page that is... offensive or not, it totally belongs there WookMuff 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- All right, I'll definitely see what I can do. (I suck at making screenshots, but if I can find some cap on the Internet and get permission to use it, that'd fly, right?)
- Update: There was already Cheetahmen screenshots on the page, so I used one. As for re-arranging the screenshot to be by the Cheetahmen description and not that other game, I thought I'd leave that to you more experienced editors; after all, they do look kind of cool right in the middle like that. Anyway, I still don't think it's necessarily "censorship." Unless I'm wrong, Wikipedia's policy is basically "don't be foul unless you have to be to get your point across," and having that cap up was not necessary. Darth Katana X 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Removing something because you feel it is inappropriate is censorship. I don't care about custer's revenge either way, but what you did could still be termed censorship, right or wrong, policy or no. WookMuff 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
title
lame name change. so weak WookMuff 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Re:
Umm, the article is ok...but it can stand a LOT of improving.
For instance, what's THIS doing in an "official" encyclopedia?
"Seanbaby.com wrote, 'Superman looks a lot like a flying log in panties, and the entire world is covered in a dull green fog.' "
Since WHEN is Seanbaby a "reliable source"? The answer is, he isn't.
I especially didn't care for the way he dissed the graphics for Bible Adventures (after all, the game is meant for CHILDREN to play--not teens or adults.) So, my point is this: if you're making a game for children, then would you pour ALL of your artistic creativity into that game you're making for children?
The answer is no, you wouldn't. You would make graphics that would appeal to the child. Hence, the cartoony and kinda goofy-looking sprites and background.
So, anyways...Seanbaby is not a credible source--now Gamespy and its ratings on the games ARE credible and you can leave in what the polls had to say about them I guess.
But Seanbaby....ummm no.
-- JFB
Seanbaby wrote that for EGM, which is a reliable source. They wouldn't have posted it if it was total BS. Besides, you seem to have a complete lack of humor detection, or any sense of exaggeration. Stop being all uptight. Sertman 22:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Sertman
Re: To Sertman
I don't know about that...
Just now, I went to the EGM site and did a search for "Superman 64 review" Click on the link and you'll get the complete list of the folks who did a review for EGM on Superman 64.
I then did two searches on the following phrase:
'Superman looks a lot like a flying log in panties, and the entire world is covered in a dull green fog.' "
I did a Google search and a Hotmail Search and on the Google search, I only got two relavent results:
1. Wikipedia's article 2. Seanbaby's site
Can I have your sources?
Lastly...You said: "You seem to have a complete lack of humor detection, or any sense of exaggeration. Stop being all uptight."
As for humor detection, yeah, it's funny to have a guy pile a bunch of animals on top of a banana and carry them all the way to the ark. It's also kinda funny to see Mary surrounded by Egyptian soldiers and chuck baby Moses over top of them to the other side of the screen. It's even more hilarious to convert people by throwing fruit at them--and zippo, a demon pops out of them, they kneel, and then get saved.
Yeah...a lot of elements in those games kinda get exaggerated. And yes, it's quite humorous at times, to see these kind of things happening...
But to go as far as to say that it's the worst game BECAUSE of this, well, that's just....plain non-sense.
--JFB 19:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The piece appeared in the magazine, so it obviously wouldn't be online. And have you even played Superman 64? It's awful, from my own experience to others [9] Sertman 20:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed Pac-Man
You can't judge a game by its marketing. The game is a legend, and should be considered one of the best ever.
- this isn’t the arcade version were talking about. This is the Atari version. it helped cause the video game crash of 1983 and is held by many to be the worst game ever, it therefore deserves to be on the list el cid the hero 17:51 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Should Shadow The Hedgehog be removed or cleaned up?
I read the section for Shadow the Hedgehog and it just seems to have weasel words and not stated very clearly of why it's one of the worst. It seems someone is just complaining about it. I personally think it should be removed.
re-direct
I think the Search "bad games" should re-direct to this page as it is most likely what the person would be searching for. What does everyone else think? el cid the hero 13:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)