Talk:List of controversial video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Heroes Perfect?[edit]

I know this game has not caused much controversy, but I'm sure many eyes more than mine were widened upon seeing it, and few and far between even offended. The game isn't anything that bad just in general. It's simply another SNK fighting game. However, one character, Rasputin, is a pansexual stereotype. He is shown holding down his blowing robe a la Marilyn Monroe, biting his thumb effeminately in the menus, and does curtsies and raises bushes of flowers. Most shocking of all, however, is his super attack, called the 'Garden of Love', in which he pulls the top half of his robe off, grabs his foe and drags them into a rose bush, and presumably raping them. More than lightly implied as well; we can see a heart flying out of the bush as he has his way, and we can even hear Rasputin's moaning. You can even upgrade it with a full Hero meter to drag them in for a second session, which deals nearly half the character's life in damage. It's gathered very little attention, though MatPat of Game Theory gave it a mention in his 'Video Games Anti-Gay?' video.

--216.118.146.184 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of controversial video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Square's Tom Sawyer?[edit]

This one is pretty controversial and should probably be in the list. It has numerous racist caricatures in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.24.179 (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of controversial video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EA's Star Wars: Battlefront II[edit]

Should probably restrict editing rights for this page, before the currently seemingly reasonable entry gets trolled to death. 82.26.95.178 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's on plenty of watchlists. We cannot preemptively protect articles. -- ferret (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of controversial video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of controversial video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit (Pokémon Go)[edit]

I have a video of pastor Charles Lawson rebuking Pokémon Go. (https://vimeo.com/177014603) I would like to include it as a source for alleged Satanic themes, but because I uploaded the video, I need someone else to edit the article to prevent a conflict of interest. If there is no problem, please add the video to the article. Thank you in advance. --LABcrabs (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a reliable source for sourcing this. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria on this list...[edit]

To avoid some odd additions, we do need to limit additions to this list:

  • "Controversies" that are solely limited to user complaints that are not reflected into the larger body of critical reviews (eg review bombs) should not be considered controversial here.
  • Just because a game is banned in one or more countries does not make it necessary controversial. For example, the Last of Us 2 appears to be banned in the Middle East for homosexual depictions; thats not really "controversial". On the other hand, the initial banning of L4D in Australia did draw attention and thus controversial.

Basically, we want the game to be considered "controversial" by members of the reliable sources, not just seemingly controversial by certain events. --Masem (t) 19:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looping back on this @Masem. There really does need to be an inclusion criteria. What would be the approach in trying to re-evaluate this article's inclusions? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Please see the below talk page item for a discussion that may be of interest on this point. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two highly controversial games omitted[edit]

Final Fantasy XI: Super bosses that took an exorbitant amount of time to defeat. One group spent 18 hrs trying to kill Pandemonium Warden, but had to quit as members in the group were vomiting and fainting and falling ill. This sparked outrage amongst various media outlets. SE had to issue a warning, reduce the difficulty, and have super bosses despawn after 2 hrs.

https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Pandemonium_Warden

No Man's Sky: It's the very definition of controversial.

https://www.dsogaming.com/news/no-mans-sky-controversy-did-hello-games-lie/

Twizzlerstiks (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Sword & Shield[edit]

There has been multiple attempts (not just today) to add Pokemon Sword & Shield due to the issue with the game having all the Pokemon "on disc" but many locked behind DLC, conflicting with initial marketing statements. To me, this is a fan-type controversy and not the general type that we have covered here before because it didn't cause Nintendo/Game Freak to change anything. It is like review bombing for all purposes, which we don't cover on this list. --Masem (t) 17:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- ferret (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily "locked behind DLC", though. Each part of the DLC is accompanied by a free update to allow players to trade/transfer Pokemon regardless of whether or not they have purchased the DLC. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 19:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's more to that, but the concern for this page is that it is a controversy that only lies with fans of the game, as best I know. I'm not aware of the professional reviewers having any commentary about the "bait and switch" issue that those critical of this situation speak of. Now, maybe I'm not fully aware of the sources, but we want more than just something that fans say is an issue. --Masem (t) 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On this subject, I would like to bring up this talk page discussion. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 20:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pedlar vs City Enforcers (Chinese video game)[edit]

Hello, I found out about a 2010 game banned in China named "Pedlar vs City Enforcers" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11599047 It's based off of a real world event where local enforced beat a street vendor. The Chinese government banned the game even though it was already gaining popularity online. I would add the title myself, but I'm not good at editing tables. Good luck. There is an article about the City Enforces here, apparently there was a riot against them in 2010 https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=https://cn.nytimes.com/china/20130802/cc02wangjinwen/&prev=search&pto=aue and a Wikipedia about one victims here Deng_Zhengjia, Xia Junfeng and Cui Yingjie, and an article on the City Enforces (Chengguan) here Urban_Administrative_and_Law_Enforcement_Bureau --60.240.245.167 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Battlefield 2042 should be added to the list of Controversial games[edit]

I think it should be added, because it caused massive outrage not only over the Battlefield Community but also over the general gaming comunity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E9:A705:1174:F501:86A2:4CAA:5596 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more specific and list examples and sources of why the game is controversial. If you can't find any - it's not controversial. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What appears to be simply fan backlash towards gameplay elements and technical issues is not a controversy; that's just negative reception. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Seducer 3 issues[edit]

I'll begin this by throat clearing that this is the first time I've tried to edit a wikipedia article and so I'm trying to treat it seriously, so forgive me if I make a mistake. The entry super seducer appears in the version history on 20:25 5 Febuaury 2020 with no comment indicating that it was added (+3,097 indicating more content appeared at this time, but I'm focusing on this entry) by (User_talk:82.26.220.45). My attempt to change this is an exercise in me learning how to challenge an entry, cite rules and potentially edit it. I believe this is a good candidate as the article is fairly innocuous / inconsequential / unpopular and thus as a learning exercise less likely to cause issues compared to other articles with problematic entries.

I believe this entry would be in opposition of (WP:NOR), (WP:NPOV), and (MOS:LABEL).

  • "came under fire by a number of left wing critics, who one described it as the "world's sleaziest game",[33]"

The cited source doesn't state anything about the game coming under fire by critics or left wing critics for that matter. The author is, I would say, presenting their own views and arguing that it came under fire by left wing critics and using the citations as examples of what it believes to be "left wing critics". It also uses the headline to serve as a source of content for the article. Ergo (WP:NOR), (WP:NPOV) and (MOS:LABEL).

I believe the entry could be condensed significantly by focusing on a quick summary of the kickstarter and its subsequent removal from mainstream retail and the reasons journalists talk about for this action in those articles.LoquaciousLabor (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Heart[edit]

apparently this game is controverisal for being pro-russia admist the country's invasion of ukraine. proof: https://www.pcgamer.com/why-are-people-arguing-about-atomic-heart/ 82.10.140.109 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent need for inclusion criteria[edit]

At present, this list is a dumping ground for random controversies related to games. Some of these controversies have little citations and seem trivial. The article also fails to discern between games that are controversial (a end-user response), games that are censored (a Government/regulator response), and games that happen to have had nudity or violence in them that seem objectionable but offer no evidence of there being a 'controversial' response. Because there is no inclusion criteria, the list is plainly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This seems to have been a concern of the 2009 deletion discussion which ended up being inconclusive. Whilst I think the article is worth keeping, it is not in a good state and really needs better editorial control over what is included.

Starting a conversation on what inclusion criteria could look like - to put aside definitional issues on what a "controversy" is, I think an uncontroversial starting point - pun intended - is:

  • The controversy relates to a video game that is in itself notable.
  • The controversy is subject to significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are cited in the list.
  • The controversy is more than negative reception from reviewers or end users about the quality of the game (best addressed under List of video games notable for negative reception).
  • The listed item should identify a response from individuals, groups, or censors that made the game controversial. Simply noting that a game contained objectionable or censored content (i.e. nudity or violence) does not make a game controversial unless there is evidence from secondary sources of a controversy arising from the release or content of a game.

Let me know if you have any thoughts.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think point could be amended to include controversies raised solely by players of a game, unless that controversy is readily covered in RSes and treated as a legitimate one in those sources. This, for example, would exclude "Depression Quest" (one of the titles associated with Gamergate. Masem (t) 15:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the controversy should be about the release or content of the game itself if the list is to be framed as 'List of controversial video games' rather than 'List of video game controversies'. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are looking to trim down this list significantly, perhaps "list of video controversies" could be right, with inclusion of broad controversies such as Gamergate, loot boxes, violence, with pointers to those standalone articles, and then addressing significant controversies on single games or series not otherwise covered in the broad cases (eg Mortal Kombat and GTA would fall under the violence controversy) Masem (t) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this largely duplicates Video game controversies, which serves the same role of discussing systemic controversies. I think the approach of listing controversies associated with specific video games is sound, but there needs to be a standard that the controversies merit notability on their own, and not just a list of every time someone was upset at the violence or sex in a video game... ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that, but I think that gives us reason to remove games readily covered under that, while including a few prime examples back to that article (again, with GTA and Mortal Kombat as standouts). Games that aren't easily covered in those categories (stuff like Devotion or Six Days in Fahallah) would be kept here, but still stripping out the player "manufactured" ones. — Masem (t) 04:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a controversy needs to be about a game rather than some extraneous context such as in the case of Depression Quest, and needs to be echoed by reliable secondary sources rather than implied by a poor user response. Sounds reasonable to me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have always felt that controversy is too subjective and arbitrary to make a neutral, verifiable article. There is always going to be a bias that is either too inclusive, too exclusive, or even both at the same time (literally arbitrary). The only thing that makes sense to me is to link to notable video game controversies, and scratch everything else. But if there's not support for that, I'll try to support other editors doing some type of clean-up. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a WP:TNT approach is to be taken, would the impetus for a deletion discussion be that the list is unverifiable and indiscriminate because there is no criteria and therefore no reasonable assessment of whether an item is or is not 'controversial'? I think this article is salvageable, but that reasoning is sound. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only way this list will ever be manageable is if it's limited to controversies that received significant mainstream non-gaming news coverage. That gives us an unambiguous cutoff threshold. Otherwise I share Shooterwalker's concerns that the list will end up being too arbitrary. I can link half a dozen different RS articles talking about the recent Monster Hunter Rise DRM controversy but I don't think anyone will remember it as a "controversial video game" a year from now. Many of the current entries feel pretty trivial and/or are dubiously sourced. CurlyWi (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that controversies on this page should have documented by sources normally outside the VG media (eg BBC, NY Times, etc.) with addition backup by normal VG sources. Those I would still want to see "common" controversies like just being a violent video game may also not be a reason to include. Masem (t) 18:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above feedback, I have amended the proposed criteria to below. Pinging @Masem, CurlyWi, and Shooterwalker: for thoughts. Also pinging @Ferret and QuietCicada: to seek views from recent editors who have cleaned up the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great! However, does #2 mean "three reliable sources, at least one of which is not video game media" or "three reliable sources that are not video game media"? The wikilink to RSP is helpful for new users, but I don't think it should be on "outside video game media". QuietCicada chirp 23:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the above to reflect this feedback. Thanks for your thoughts! If a few more users are in support, I think it's sound to formalize this and put it at the top of the page absent any objections, and then put my mind to which items are in scope for this page, which aren't, and which just need better sourcing to meet it. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second point (the controversy itself has been covered by multiple non-game media sources) is really the important part, and everything else is a footnote (e.g.: we can identify what the controversy is, the game is notable, it's not just a disagreement about whether the game was good or bad, etc.)
  • The controversy itself should rise to the level of significant coverage in the non video game press, from at least three reliable sources, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
  • Without the previously described coverage, most disagreements are not considered exceptional enough to qualify as a controversy. It is not enough for sources to mention negative reception, complaints from fans or press, adult content such as sex or violence, or international differences in what content is appropriate.
This might be shorter. But I basically consent to the standards as described. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a sound point and I will try shortening without diluting the meeting to find a common middle ground. I feel more guidance is necessary as the real use of the above will be largely to point people to decisions made to remove or revert inappropriate additions to the article. The less that is left to interpretation, the better I think! But appreciate any thoughts - I dont want to jump the gun on this until everyone is satisfied. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. We can always try for a more concise version later. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with these, but it might be worthwhile to draft up or create a list of what changes with these requirements in place, as to make sure we're creating weird exemptions or eliminating obvious inclusions. Masem (t) 18:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, I think you covered all the major points people brought up. CurlyWi (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential article changes with new criteria[edit]

Given there was generally consensus on the above, I have tidied up the criteria and put them at the top of the page. The next step is to test these ideas in practice and talk about what practical omissions might come from them. Of course none of this is set in stone, but we can refine it as needed.

Below is a table with some examples of how the criteria may affect items. It is not an all-inclusive analysis and just provides broad examples, I welcome any additions. Happy to be wrong on my assessment of some of these, so feel free to edit the below. Of course I would prefer to chat about these before going gung-ho on anything in the article itself. Pinging @Masem: as requested.

Criteria Items not likely to meet criteria Potentially fixable items not meeting criteria
(a) specific notable video game or series 177, beat refle, School Shooter: North American Tour 2012, Simulador de Escravidão (games that lack articles, sourcing of each is highly variable. more work needed to determine if any are individually notable)
(b)(i) significant coverage from multiple reliable sources Due to the disparate sourcing quality, many items have limited coverage in their citations. Some examples of items that may be eligible but require work include Soldier of Fortune and Thrill Kill.
(b)(iii) coverage outside video game media This requires much more in-depth analysis and sourcing for items to determine.
(c)(i) sufficiently identifies controversial element Perfect Dark (a publisher taking a more mature direction is not a controversy)
(c)(i) identifies controversial response Because many items also have brief and inadequate descriptions, this is also something that we can return to later. Some obvious examples of items that do not meet the criteria but could easily be improved to meet it are Carmageddon, Doom, Night Trap, and The Sims 2..
(x)(i) NOT complaints, review bombs, unrelated to game Assassins Creed Odyssey (fan complaint about narrative of DLC, unclear if this had any broader significance), Hogwarts Legacy (controversy largely related to Potter IP; none of this specifically seems to be about the game)
(x)(ii) NOT brief, minor, local or confined to video game media Dance Dance Revolution Solo (highly localised response) J.B. Harold Murder Club, (only founded on review comments about appropriateness of content), Katakis (public but founded on a company's claim of IP similarities that gave rise to no actual dispute)
(x)(iii) NOT censored content without a notable public response Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Silent Hill: Homecoming (better addressed on List of banned video games unless more sourcing can be found suggesting a public controversy) The Guy Game (significant coverage around a lawsuit affecting the plaintiff and campaigning by legislators makes it more than a distanced censorship decision)

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article could start just by removing the more obvious non-controversies. That will make it easier to identify and fix the edge cases. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're on the same page, which ones would these be? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say I agree with the table. The left/middle column gives good guidance on the most obvious items that don't belong, and when you're ready, we can look again at the items in the right column. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vrxces I think your example exclusions here are fine; I generally agree with your logic. At this point I think the hard part is just going to be digging through sources on all the "maybe" entries. For example, the first one on the list ethnic stereotyping in Punch-Out!! potentially has some substance, but the 3 sources cited are crap, and I couldn't find anything better Googling. So that's 1 down, 100 more to go... CurlyWi (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helldivers 2?[edit]

Given the controversy lately that PC players are forced to have a PSN account and Some Countries don't support PSN, I think it should be on the list Xstronomy007 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far too early, especially as Arrowhead's community manager has announced they were told it would not be required in non-PSN countries. -- ferret (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also per the revised criteria, this is just a review bomb. It's not controversial in the way this list should be constructed. Masem (t) 23:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just echoing the others. A review bomb isn't a controversy. That could change depending on additional coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_controversial_video_games&oldid=1222448897"