The worst games of 2023 got some pretty decent ratings

Video Games Chronicle has shared that Metacritic has announced the "worst games of the year" for 2023, defined by their overall rating. Games must have had at least seven reviews to qualify.

1 - The Lord of the Rings: Gollum – 34
2 - Flashback 2 – 35
3 - Greyhill Incident – 38
4 - Quantum Error – 40
5 - Testament: The Order of High-Human – 41
6 - Crime Boss: Rockay City – 43
7 - Hellboy: Web of Wyrd – 47
8 - Gangs of Sherwood – 48
9 - Loop8: Summer of Gods – 49
10 - Gargoyles Remastered – 49

So... some of the supposed worst games of this year have a score of close to 50. Which should be "average". Blimey, have we had a sensational year of game releases where barely any have been below average?!?

No. No, we haven't . Instead, we need to refer to the Modern Review Scale and transfer the scores to the tried-and-trusted old-school review scale. Now I get it... these games are really 1s or 2s... and now this makes sense as them being some of the worst titles of the year.






"jawa is such a grouch; an old man yelling at clouds. This thread is really bad - one of the worst I've seen this year." [6] .

jawa_ wrote:So... some of the supposed worst games of this year have a score of close to 50. Which should be "average". Blimey, have we had a sensational year of game releases where barely any have been below average?!?

Should 5 mean average? According to who?

While on some level using the midpoint as average makes sense it is still an approach with its own issues. Average when compared to what? Only games within the same console generation? Only games from the last 10 years? Every game ever released? On a purely technical level games are getting more advanced all the time so even bad looking games by comparison with their contemporaries could be considered well above average historically. Then there is the issue that with every reviewed release the true average will shift. Should old games need constant rereview to readjust the curve? I would also argue that games aren't in a normal distribution anyway, and reviews are not exhaustive. There are a lot more really bad games than there are really good games, but conversely really good games are much more likely to get reviewed.

There are plenty of different approaches to scoring a game. Aggregators like metacritic even take scores using different scales and "convert" them to a score out of 10, but is a 4 star review really the same as an 8/10, or a 3 star a 6/10? I don't think so. Even when the scale is the same the score can have different equally legitimate meanings.

Even if it were a scale that made sense, wanting every reviewer to conform to the same scale is madness.

Its a shame about that Gollum game. If it was just a little better I would have tried it at a reduced rate. That style of 3D platforming appeals to me, sort of like the ledge shimmering, cliff hopping of Uncharted -would have down for a whole game of that. In the tiny clips I've seen that wall running to clear a jump looked cool. Shame they didn't pull this game off.

Little surprised about Gargoyles, I'd have to look into why it reviewed low (I think the remaster of duck tales (which I loved) reviewed poorly too just because gameplay wise we've moved on and the modern graphics shun a bit of a light on that, think this maybe a similar deal). I didn't play the original, don't have that much affection for the IP, plus there are lots of other games like this for 'free' on Nintendo Expansion thing, but might take a look one day.

This thread gets a [3]

And that's on the modern review scale.

I’m adamant that the likes of N64 Magazine were not giving games scores of 40-50% and describing them as average.

Somehow the masterpiece Walking Dead Destinies managed to avoid claiming a slam dunk win here

jawa_ wrote:Video Games Chronicle has shared that Metacritic has announced the "worst games of the year" for 2023, defined by their overall rating. Games must have had at least seven reviews to qualify.

1 - The Lord of the Rings: Gollum – 34
2 - Flashback 2 – 35
3 - Greyhill Incident – 38
4 - Quantum Error – 40
5 - Testament: The Order of High-Human – 41
6 - Crime Boss: Rockay City – 43
7 - Hellboy: Web of Wyrd – 47
8 - Gangs of Sherwood – 48
9 - Loop8: Summer of Gods – 49
10 - Gargoyles Remastered – 49

So... some of the supposed worst games of this year have a score of close to 50. Which should be "average". Blimey, have we had a sensational year of game releases where barely any have been below average?!?

No. No, we haven't . Instead, we need to refer to the Modern Review Scale and transfer the scores to the tried-and-trusted old-school review scale. Now I get it... these games are really 1s or 2s... and now this makes sense as them being some of the worst titles of the year.






"jawa is such a grouch; an old man yelling at clouds. This thread is really bad - one of the worst I've seen this year." [6] .

Those aren't the worst games released this year. Those are the worst reviewed games released this year.

Your 1s and 2s are the crappy titles on the eShop that no one bothers reviewing.

I've been tempted to buy Crime Boss! (Probably still will when it gets cheap enough)

I think reluctance to use 1-3 on the 10 point scale has always been a thing. I can definitely remember a similar topic to this being posted on GamesRadar, and that was, like, 20 years ago.

It might have got worse over time. But OTOH, nowadays there are so many mediocre-or-better games being released every week that it's got to be more difficult for a truly crap game to get reviewed at all. As Tomous says, your 1-3s are eShop / Steam Store asset flip shovelware.

OrangeXMS wrote:Should 5 mean average? According to who?

Me!

Well, and most gaming magazine review systems pre 1997 .

OrangeXMS wrote:...While on some level using the midpoint as average makes sense it is still an approach with its own issues. Average when compared to what? Only games within the same console generation? Only games from the last 10 years? Every game ever released? On a purely technical level games are getting more advanced all the time so even bad looking games by comparison with their contemporaries could be considered well above average historically. Then there is the issue that with every reviewed release the true average will shift. Should old games need constant rereview to readjust the curve? I would also argue that games aren't in a normal distribution anyway, and reviews are not exhaustive. There are a lot more really bad games than there are really good games, but conversely really good games are much more likely to get reviewed...

I'd suggest that a game is assessed in that particular moment in time. Yeah, games generally improve in technical terms over the years but, imho, you assess as at that time. What kind of standard is the game in comparison to other title releasing around that period? Is it better (7 or higher), worse (4 or lower) or about the same (5 or 6)? I don't feel that you need to look back over the last ten years or at every game ever released.... you just make a call in that moment.

OrangeXMS wrote:...There are plenty of different approaches to scoring a game. Aggregators like metacritic even take scores using different scales and "convert" them to a score out of 10, but is a 4 star review really the same as an 8/10, or a 3 star a 6/10? I don't think so. Even when the scale is the same the score can have different equally legitimate meanings...

It's definitely not perfect... but, yes, there has to be some sort of method for comparing and contrasting the various review systems. Maybe a 4-star isn't exactly the same as 8/10, but I'd suggest that it's roughly equivalent.

Of course, I understand and support people to create whatever scoring systems they choose! I recall Ace magazine scoring games out of 1,000 (as if "just" 100 options wasn't enough!). Equally, if someone chooses to mark games out of 16 and says that 9 is "average"... more power to them. This doesn't stop a need for aligning different methods and coming to some sort of "average", though.

OrangeXMS wrote:...Even if it were a scale that made sense, wanting every reviewer to conform to the same scale is madness.

Hehe... I'm not really sure that I was attempting to force reviewers to obey or anything... I felt it was pretty tongue-in-cheek and just an observation that - personally - I prefer the old-school way of using a review scale. In my mind, "5" is "about average". If you don't feel that is the cases for your assessments... or you choose to use different methods... that's all cool!

Tidings of Cuttooth and Joy wrote:I’m adamant that the likes of N64 Magazine were not giving games scores of 40-50% and describing them as average.

Absolutely; they were describing them as pretty bad indeed, iirc. This was the start of "average" games getting a 7.

Rawrgna wrote:Somehow the masterpiece Walking Dead Destinies managed to avoid claiming a slam dunk win here

Yes! I believe it just missed out because it has had relatively few reviews (from the reviewers tracked by Metacritic, anyway).

Tomous wrote:

jawa_ wrote:Video Games Chronicle has shared that Metacritic has announced the "worst games of the year" for 2023, defined by their overall rating. Games must have had at least seven reviews to qualify...

Those aren't the worst games released this year. Those are the worst reviewed games released this year.

Your 1s and 2s are the crappy titles on the eShop that no one bothers reviewing.

VGC and Metacritic used the "Worst games of 2023" tag.

I agree that there are mountains of terrible games on the digital storefronts!

Ste wrote:I've been tempted to buy Crime Boss! (Probably still will when it gets cheap enough)

Funnily enough I have looked at that, too . It's a title I'd like to try if I saw it ultra-cheap; just to see what it's like.

jawa_ wrote:

Tomous wrote:

jawa_ wrote:Video Games Chronicle has shared that Metacritic has announced the "worst games of the year" for 2023, defined by their overall rating. Games must have had at least seven reviews to qualify...

Those aren't the worst games released this year. Those are the worst reviewed games released this year.

Your 1s and 2s are the crappy titles on the eShop that no one bothers reviewing.

VGC and Metacritic used the "Worst games of 2023" tag.

I agree that there are mountains of terrible games on the digital storefronts!

Yes I know, because they are the worst games they have records of for the year. But my point is that doesn't automatically mean they should be worth 1 or 2 out of 10, when there are worse games out there not being reviewed.

jawa_ wrote:

Ste wrote:I've been tempted to buy Crime Boss! (Probably still will when it gets cheap enough)

Funnily enough I have looked at that, too . It's a title I'd like to try if I saw it ultra-cheap; just to see what it's like.

Grcade plays!

Tomous wrote:Yes I know, because they are the worst games they have records of for the year. But my point is that doesn't automatically mean they should be worth 1 or 2 out of 10, when there are worse games out there not being reviewed.

I can see your thinking, Tom... but, hey, what are we gonna do if some games aren't reviewed? All we can do is go with the games that are reviewed, can't we? The games that were highlighted generally appear to have cost reasonable amounts of money to purchase; they're not the £1.29 stuff that fills up the digital stores.

I agree that it doesn't automatically mean they should get 1 or 2 out of ten. I was just surprised - and found it quite funny - that the "worst games of 2023" were scoring close to a 5.

Ste wrote:

jawa_ wrote:

Ste wrote:I've been tempted to buy Crime Boss! (Probably still will when it gets cheap enough)

Funnily enough I have looked at that, too . It's a title I'd like to try if I saw it ultra-cheap; just to see what it's like.

Grcade plays!

Blimey, Ste... I wonder how many people will join us on that? .

jawa_ wrote:

Ste wrote:

jawa_ wrote:

Ste wrote:I've been tempted to buy Crime Boss! (Probably still will when it gets cheap enough)

Funnily enough I have looked at that, too . It's a title I'd like to try if I saw it ultra-cheap; just to see what it's like.

Grcade plays!

Blimey, Ste... I wonder how many people will join us on that? .

It's on my wishlist. 40% off at the moment so around £20.

Watched some videos, just looks like some mindless fun shooting things. (I've got some many other games I want/should play but I just think nowadays they take too long to get into and it puts me off. You were in a tank in Super Probotector blowing things up after about 30 seconds.)

Think the interesting thing is all the iconic 80s/90s real life characters.

jawa_ wrote:

In fairness the 'anything less than a 7 is gooseberry fool' trope has been around for as long as I remember reading game reviews.

5 has never been truly 'average', and it shouldn't really be that way anyway. That would suggest that all games released are on a perfect normal distribution and that there are exactly as many 'utterly unplayable dreck' games as there are 'outstandingly fun' ones when in reality most games are more than enjoyable and skew towards the top end.