It’s just disgusting how people are so cruel.
Talk:Crappy Games Wiki
About this board
Welcome to our Main Page’s discussion tab where you can say anything you want that is either off-topic or related to this wiki. If any related to this wiki, you can ask us for help and we’ll do that for you.
On second though, maybe TLOU:Part II can be blacklisted for a while...
This is normal lmao.
Many of the voice actors got death threats for their performances.
Still, it's going too far.
Maybe the game is not good, but giving death threats over the character's role in the story is dumb. It is like Jar Jar in the Star Wars prequels. Ahmed Best, Jar Jar's voice actor, got death threats over his character. Maybe Laura Bailey did a poor performance, but getting death threats about it is stupid.
As of July 4 2020, The Last Of Us Part II is officially forbidden.
Oh yeah, it's gonna be a long time before an article on either wiki is made.
First Junichi Masuda because of you know what, and now this.
"This shit's real fucked up. Everything!"— Sean "Sweet" Johnson
Neil Druckmann has been getting those types of messages as well, to no one's surprise. https://twitter.com/Neil_Druckmann/status/1279841603843051520
There's nothing wrong with not liking something, but the moment you resort to threats, slurs, or anything along those lines, whatever argument you had is rendered worthless.
its already been decided on the discord server that The Last of Us II is forbidden in both wikis
Back then we weren't afraid of having a game on this wiki and we didn't think of prohibiting a game only because "some people hate it too much", which is something that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the game anyway.
The reasoning behind this type of decisions is basically that if someone who hates a game crosses the line and send death threats to anyone involved in the game, then every article which negatively criticizes such game is automatically the same thing as hating the developers and sending them death threats or whatever the exagerrated haters did; this reasoning is very fallacious.
Last but not least, these matters must not be discussed on the Discord server, not every user go to that server, they must be discussed on the wiki.
I agree, I don’t get why so many users are suddenly against adding anything even remotely controversial, especially since we have pages about bigger/more serious controversies than this one.
In fact, they're already died down and most of these "bigger and more serious" controversies are SJW stuff, and this topic has nothing do with SJW's.
My idea is wait for the controversy dies down a bit and after that we make a decision about what wiki we should put to TLOUII, on CGW, on AGW or both.
My two cents? Any game that angers as many gamers as TLOU2 has should automatically be banned from getting a page on AGW. Whether TLOU2 itself has enough bad qualities to be listed on this wiki I'll leave to others, as I will never buy that or any other Naughty Dog game for as long as I live.
That's an interesting take on the matter, Xian Pu.
Masson, everyone can discuss anywhere they're want, but of course, not non-topic areas. And if we have a page, ready to see lots of edit wars.
The reason of why TLOU Part II is being forbidden is because it's way too controversial right now. If the controversy calms down, we're gonna create a page on AGW. Also, locking a page indefinitely to admins only mode is not a good idea because it just prevent anyone to edit the page.
Decision which concern the wiki must be discussed on the wiki, as I said not everyone goes to the Discord server therefore it is not right to discuss there.
Allowing only admins to edit a page prevents edit wars from happening, that's the point of locking pages. It is a measure that can be taken when necessary, it would be nice to have wikis where it isn't necessary to protect pages, but it isn't practical to think that.
Also, why are you so sure a possible page will be on AGW and not here?
Autoconfirmed users only mode is make much more sense since it still keep the page safe, while autoconfirmed or confirmed users still can edit the page.
I'm not against the pages being locked to admins only mode idenfinitely, unless it's not a hot topic like SJW's.
Unnamedgoon when he locked a page to admins only mode idenfinitely just for vandalism: "We might as well as lock every single page by going that logic".
I don't know but we make a decision about that, just wait for the controversy calms down.
If we can’t add The Last of Us Part II, then..
Can we add "Joel in One Pro Golf"?
I don't know that game. Why do you think it should be here?
That's not an actual game. He referring to a certain joke people are making about the game.
Ah, an internet joke. Well, but how could it fit on this wiki, if it is not a game? It could go on Rotten Websites Wiki, but why does it suck?
I'm pretty sure he was just joking about making that a page, as something like that isn't noteworthy enough for a page.
Right, but I didn't say to lock it indefinitely, a page can also be temporary locked to admins only; in case of edit wars this is pretty useful, I know we now have the ability to block users from specific pages but blocks should be the last resort when dealing with wikis and users.
About that, just to clarify, the page Unnamedgoon was talking about was vandalised; he was saying it wasn't right to lock the page indefintely and not really criticizing locking it to admins only if I remember correctly.
It is true that no page has to be locked indefinitely unless it is a SJW page or other highly problematic topics but sometimes it can be used to prevent edit wars or vandalism you don't know how much they will last; you can set the protection time to indefinite and later simply remove it. You see there are many options you can choose from, feel free to ask when in doubt about something.
As for the game, we have our four choices as usual: awesome, decent, average and crappy. We will then decide later but my current guess is the average category here, judging from the gamers I heard from and the users who wrote about the game on our wiki.
I agree with Masson here. And on the topic of controversial stuff, Pokémon Sword and Shield may be controversial, but it's not controversial to the point that it should be banned from both wikis. And I honestly think that it's AGW page should be restored and rewritten from a neutral POV so that the page doesn't sound like we're desperately defending the game like it was before the page was deleted.
Ok, but we need to have rules for edits regarding those pages. I agree those pages won't be admin locked automatically but they can temporarily if there are too many edit wars or vandalism, 1 day at least and a week at most. As already mentioned I think that a page can indeed be admin locked indefinitely if it covers an extremely sensitive topic BUT it likely won't need to be updated in the future or the admins can be trusted to update it on their own. I also propose caution or denial of a "reception" part of the page due to review bombing that usually happens with games like that or paid/unreliable critic sources. I understand if it's a no and we can go with reliable sources like some YouTubers but this is what we usually do.
The main reason our wikis always appealed to many internet users is our simple rule system. I don't think it is a good idea to have precise rules for those type of pages or about any other topic we may have to discuss in the future; I trust every admin on our gaming wikis has enough common sense to take the right decision for those pages if troubles arise.
About the reception, that has never been mandatory in our articles although a reception part makes a page look better and professional, more complete. But here is what we should do about different sources (I actually believe we are already doing this, for the most part).
Reception sources must still be in the page. Someone can say that review bombing creates fake scores, but it still is reception; a group of people highly despised a game and gave lot of 0s. They are exagerrated scores but they still represent how a portion of the audience reacted to a game.
About paid reviews, that's a different matter as they definitely are fake scores that obviously don't have anything to do with the quality of the game. But these too can be a way to discover how well a game did; imagine a game making poor sales and prompting the publishers to bribe some critics so that they can have a few good scores which will hopefully influence some gamers' decisions on buying the game. That's reception material although it is something that must be investigated pretty well to be in the page.
So, in short, reliable sources will straightly be in the page's reception part but we should also mention review bombing and paid reviews and just say what they are. This of course, if there are eveidences of review bombing and paid reviews about a game.
Yeah, and the SwSh page should be protected to prevent bias, and do not mention the Pokédex cut nor have a comment section because we know what happened last time, ESPECIALLY with the comments. But most importantly, the page, if restored, should be rewritten from a neutral POV, because it looked like we were desperately defending the game.
I already discussed this comment topic before with you, we're can delete comments and removing the comments section just for hate comments is not a good idea. This is like locking a page to admins only mode idenfinitely because of vandalism, which is never a good idea at first place. In other words, no and no, we're not gonna remove the comments section, just make the comments section to logged users only mode, as in AGW, unlogged users can make comments.
Than wynaut (pun intended) nuke the comments on the page and start fresh? Because a majority of them are from unlogged users.
That's why we should re-create the page from the scratch.
That was kind of what I was implying. Recreating the page from a neutral POV.
When I was making the page about that game, I tried going for a neutral POV based on the review videos I watched, but TyrantRex jammed his personal opinions down the page's throat. That's why the page looked very sugarcoating.
Yeah, TyrantUnderreactionRex (I know, a stupid nickname but I gave him this nickname due to him calling everything as "overreaction"), such a hypocrite.
He removes conent from pages because of "sugarcoating" and "opinions", yet he adds or removes content for personal reasons, just saying.
Speaking of re-creating, I re-created YandereDev page from scratch because not only the old one is filled with baseless accusations, it also looks like a personal blog rather than a proper page.
What happened with TyrantRex really saddened me. He went from being one of the top users here to one of the worst. I hope one day he will redeem himself and come back on the wikis with his former self.
About the Pokémon page, I must ask something. If the page was exagerrating in saying it is a good game, wouldn't it be better to have the game on the average category here, if the article will be recreated? I remember the page, and I think not many good qualities will remain on the page after the removal of TyrantRex's bias.
Eezy’s case was even more tragic because the vandalism from his account likely wasn’t even his doing. But TyrantRex’s case was also tragic as well. Complete negative 180. I doubt TyrantRex will come back, but we can dream.
And I think it’s a good idea to put SwSh here in the “Average Games” category. Any comments would be heavily moderated to prevent flame wars, or there’d be no comments if the moderation isn’t enough.
Yeah, that's a good idea.
Also, TyrantRex's downfall is like a video game franchise's downfall. (Sonic the Hedgehog, Need for Speed or Call of Duty for example.)
When I first made the sandbox page about Pokémon SwSh, I had intended to add it to CGW even though the sandbox was on the opposite wiki.
I still wonder what happened to TyrantRex that suddenly caused him to act like a control freak.
Maybe it was the so-called “stupid edits” to the “Get Woke, Go Broke” page that caused him to snap.
I know this sounds weird, but should I make a "Controversial Topic" template that is put at the top of those pages that aren't admin locked indefinitely so users know those rules apply to the page?
That won't be necessary Kesner. If edits are not welcome to a page we can just protect it, or block specific user from editing the page. Putting a sign on the page doesn't seem very appealing to me, it is too much policing.
I don't think having SwSh on either wiki is a good idea. It would definitely cause drama, and I thought Trevor said we should treat it like Sausage Party on the movie wikis.
I realized there will eventually come a time when it’ll eventually be considered old news, and all the flame wars and drama about the game’s quality will end, as most drama about media eventually do. Look at The Last Jedi, for example. Masson once thought we couldn’t put it on either wiki, before deciding to put it on AMW. It was TyrantRex’s fault the page here was deleted in the first place because he desperately tried to shoehorn his personal opinions in. Plus, I don’t think Sausage Party is relevant anymore.
The whole Dexit controversy will basically NEVER die out, and that's pretty much a problem. One way or another, there will just be more fuel for the controversy.
So let me get this straight: you singlehandedly decided to ban it from both wikis all because of developer laziness? And so what if there’s drama? Screw the drama. This can be prevented with a lack of a comments section and a heavily moderated discussion page, on top of the page being protected, of course. Any users who vandalize other pages just because of this one would be banned. Don’t jump to conclusions about saying Dexit will last forever.
Developer laziness? I never said anything like that. And see what I mean? SwSh is a pretty divisive game to discuss about. The mere mention of it is enough to cause a flame war.
I dug into the controversy. It’s because some Pokémon can’t be caught. Therefore, it was caused by developer laziness. And I’m not practicing the drama myself. Again, the drama won’t last forever, as if future generations will keep fighting about it even after we’re all dead. If Masson agrees with you, however, you won this argument.
The Dex cut wasn't "developer laziness", it was a collaberative decision between Game Freak, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company, and this change was inevitable considering the ever increasing number of Pokémon.
Alright, I guess it’s WAY too much of a hot topic. For now. Eventually the drama will end (again, it’s not like it’ll go on for generations to come). The TLOU: Part II drama doesn’t even hold a candle to this mess. People will keep fighting each other until they find a different game to fight over. Endless cycle.
That was my entire point. It's too divisive of a topic.
There is a chance we may add it here, however, but only after Dexit dies down and the people fighting over it will find an even more controversial game to fight over, then that dies down and they find another one, rinse and repeat.
The chance of Dexit dying down is pretty unlikely, and it's STILL going on a year after E3 2019 from all the shit I've seen.
Even after there comes an even more controversial game they should be fighting over?
Yeah, pretty much.
So by 2025 or even 2030 it’ll still go on?
Probably. Who knows, this change will also apply to future Pokémon games IIRC.
I’m guessing that same drama will carry over to those as well? Or just that one little game. If it’s the latter, it makes that drama utterly ridiculous.
The Atari VCS 800
I think the Atari VCS 800 console deserves a page on here. I mean, with the crapfest that's emerging around it, I think it's safe to say it does belong on this wiki.
The console are neither being released nor confirmed that it was a scam yet. So, I've included thei info on Atari's page for now.
Fair enough then. I understand.
I got a rule to reduce vandalism that from now on, new users are cannot be comfirmed users (they have to ask an admin to be comfirmed)
They're can became autoconfirmed anyway.
I guess I'm back
I once said I wuld no longer edit the Mainline wikis, right?
Well, that decision changed, I guess I can be here after all.
Can there be a page of Riot Games or League of Legends?
The League of Legends fan base is super toxic and Riot Games is super greedy so can there be an article of them both?
- Toxic fanbase is not qualified for bad quality of the company itself.
- Most of their mess were caused by Tencent's involvement.
How about putting it on forbidden pages section or make it because LoL's quality has declined so much
Okay, I'll put it on forbidden page. Unless we have more reason why Riot sucks on its own (without Tencent's involvement), Riot's page is forbidden for now.
What is your opinion on the Super Smash Bros-Fighting Game Pedophilia Allegations?
Ever since Puppeh Came out with his allegations against CinnPie, Everything has gone to shit
ZeRo just got canceled. The SJWS are here now, making shit up.
Oh shit he admit it
Nairo was exposed by CaptainZack to have had sex with him while Zack was and 15 and Nairo was 20. Meanwhile some like Keitaro flat out admit their actions. It's sad to see so many players I looked up to turn out like this, when I know many others are just allegations.
About Article Requests:
What are we going to do with Article Requests since the page is gone?
If you want to create an article for a game you can immediately do it without asking, as long as the game has the necessary score on GameFaqs. The page will then be subjected to admin staff quality control. If it doesn't meet the GameFaqs rating requirement and you still think we should still have the game here, contact an admin and provide your reasons so that the staff can discuss the matter with you.
As you can see there is no need for such a page when you are free to create the article yourself.
Oh yeah. I've done that before without the Article Request board before.
It's pointless and you don't need to use that page. Discuss with admins instead of using that page.
The Article Requests was more of a TBA Pages-esque page that encourage users to put pages of games on there that never get made, and is a way for users to bypass asking an admin.
Exactly. In addition to that, it could encourage users to add something to the list and expect someone else to make the page, which is utter laziness. It could also cause users to gain a habit of adding something to the list with the intention of making the page in the future, but never getting around to doing so.
Wait, @Seewater514, I thought you were going to be back in August. I'm really confused.
I'm only semi-inactive, not completely inactive. I'll go ahead and update my blog for more clarification.
Article Requests encorage laziness. That's all I'm saying
Why has the PvZ Garden Warfare Page on this wiki has more good qualities than bad qualities?
Nothing to say about this for the moment.
I just looked at the page for PvZ GW1 (goofing around) and I noticed it had more good qualities than bad qualities! Can anyone explain that?
One GQ was about its sequel and got removed so the problem doesn't exist anymore. But even if there still were one more GQ than BQ it wouldn't really matter, because games in the Average Games category aren't regarded as crappy (please do note the headings, which are not WIS and RQ) and can have a slightly greater number of GQs.
I have a solution, maybe make separate pages on awesome games wiki and this wiki?
Edit: Ignore this pls
Should I move the Apps to Unpleasent Apps wiki?
It's confirmed: Non-game apps only.
I honestly don't mind if you say either yes or no. If no, then I'll just stick with Non-game apps.
Okay. Understandable. I will contribute to this wiki then.
Please no because that would mean you would have to give the wiki to me, please stay or it gets shut down.
@Μπέλα2006 I can make you a bureaucrat on that wiki so you can own it.
Should you unban yourself, I really need help with my wiki (Unpleasant Apps Wiki) to improve it.
Can someone resolve this thread please?
If it's a game, it belongs here. If it's not, move it to UAW. Case closed.
Do we even have non-game app on this wiki?
Include CM Launcher 3D, please...
About Sword and Shield.
No, please read the "Forbidden pages section". Think like Sausage Party from Awful Movies Wiki.
Does anyone think this game should be in the Crappy Games Wiki? Because, having played it on my sister's Switch, I can say firsthand that most of the complaints weren't exaggerated. Key word, MOST
And if the quality is because of the anime, cards, etc., then have them out every 3 or 4 years. Nobody's asking for them to be yearly releases...i hope.
Well, based on most of the CGW admins said. The topic is still too hot for some reason, so they wanted to avoid the flame wars on CGW, since, y'know, the fanbases.
So, all we can do for now is wait.