So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

If that's what you're interpreting from the cut reason page, that was not really accurate. Due to a glitch, if a page was cutlisted more than once, then the cut reason from the first time it's sent will show regardless. The recent one (regarding having RL examples) should've been correct.

I will still see if there's anything salvageable; maybe ask the rest of the staff if we can save it or if we need to PRLC it.

Would Let's Plays not count as Web Originals? I mean, I think that Internet and fan works are more saturated with crap than other mediums due to lower quality control.

There's a cleanup for InternetBackdraft.Fallout 76.

• The Power Armor Edition, which costs $200, included a canvas duffel bag. For a start, the Power Armor Editions were so delayed that game codes had to be given out to its purchasers so they could still play the game while waiting for it. When the Power Armor Editions actually arrived, allegedly owing to a lack of materials, the bags were made from nylon instead of canvas (or, according to another source, the bag in the promotional image was a prototype and they only found out afterward that it would be too expensive to manufacture - showing a complete lack of planning on their part). Not only did Bethesda not tell purchasers this at all, their official response to complaints was "We hope this doesn't prevent anyone from enjoying what we feel is one of our best collector's editions," and in a support email they responded to the complaints with "We aren't planning on doing anything about it." They finally gave an apology a few days later, but the apology consisted of 500 Atoms, the (non-refundable) in-game store currency, which is worth exactly five dollars (and, being a fictional in-game currency, costs Bethesda literally nothing to give away). Absolutely nobody was impressed, since the prices of the shop are ludicrous and 500 Atoms isn't even enough to buy the in-game skin that gives your character a canvas bag. Some buyers are actually threatening legal action under false advertisement laws, with the general consensus being that they have an open-and-shut case (Bethesda advertised a product, then shipped something else without notifying anyone at any stage).
  • To add insult to the above injury, a different style of canvas bags were given out to Fallout 76 influencers at a promotional event a month prior. This suggests Betheseda was fully aware of the low quality of nylon bag that would be going out, and obviously had none of the advertised bags to hand out after the initial promotions were over.
  • Bethesda announced a few weeks after the nylon bag backlash first broke that they'd be shipping out real canvas bags people who bought the Power Armor edition for free, but the damage had already been done. The replacement canvas bags would apparently take about six months to ship out according to emails that Bethesda's customers received about the issue, proving that Bethesda never had any original intention of making or distributing them; six months is about the length of time it would take to hire a company to both gather the materials and then make enough canvas bags for everyone who bought the Power Armor Edition, considering the primary part of the design was already done.
  • To make things even worse, when Bethesda finally set up production for the canvas bags, they needed Power Armor Edition owners to submit their address and other sensitive information for validation and delivery. However, they accidentally leaked the personal information of thousands of Fallout 76 players. A short-lived loophole meant that submitting a ticket to receive one's replacement bag allowed that user to see virtually every other player's personal information. The loophole was closed quickly, but even more damage was done to Bethesda's reputation. This was arguably the point where the whole Fallout 76 affair went from "fiasco" to "farce".
  • Also, if you accepted the petty 500 Atoms, it left you unable to accept later, higher offers.
• On the heels of the Canvas Bag debacle came a whole new round of drama on another special collector's item Bethesda marketed: Nuka Dark Rum. From the advertisements, it looked like the rum would be packaged in a unique rocket-shaped frosted glass bottle. Instead, what they actually got (as shown by the bottling video by Silver Screen Bottling Company, the company commissioned to produce the rum bottle) was a standard glass bottle containing a factory-brewed rum, packaged inside a cheap rocket-shaped plastic casing - which additionally made the bottle look much bigger than it really was. On top of this mis-advertising, Youtubers have videoed themselves attempting to pour the rum and losing half of it in the process, stating that the only way to do so is to take off the plastic shell, i.e. the only thing which made it unique in the first place.
  • That, and the Defictionalized Nuka Dark is a sub-standard quality rum with added flavorings and colorings that were very overpowering to say the least^note One alcohol reviewer described it as tasting "like we're drinking vanilla extract", instead of the alcoholic cola mix^note Which Jack Daniels' Black Jack managed to do as intended. People have said they wouldn't have minded the low quality, since they weren't exactly buying the rum for drinking - if it hadn't cost them $80.
  • The official response to the backlash only added fuel to the fire: it tried to frame the plastic shell as an "intentional and complex design", saying that it actually cost more time and effort than a glass bottle^note And even if that's true, it begs the question of how competent management could be if they expended significantly more resources on a product paying customers didn't want instead of fewer for something they did. The statement also said that it took over 100 hours "writing the code to create the 3D-printed prototype of the shells", even though coding isn't involved in creating 3D models.
  • On a related note, the product description on the Nuka Dark Rum website blatantly copied and pasted from a Nukapedia article. This is especially obvious because it contains gameplay information which has nothing to do with the product ("Chilling a bottle of Nuka Dark Rum with a Buddy yields Ice cold Nuka Dark Rum, but there is no added benefit in doing so"). Of course, no credit was given.

Would/could this fall under Horrible.Advertising, Horrible.Other, or some other trope.

I think the bag could fit under the Promotions folder of Horrible.Other.

The Nuka Dark Rum is currently listed on Horrible.Toys, but I'm not sure if a bottle of rum can exactly be considered a toy. I'd move it to the Food folder of Other.

I'm moving it to promotions since it's not physical-harm inducing bad like the other products under Food.

I moved it to a new folder for The Merch. I'm not sure if I should have asked first, but I could think of 2 other things on the page that would fit in that category, so I think that's enough to make a new folder.

Hello. How do I follow this? The checkmark isn't notifying me.

Glasslip is on Horrible.Anime And Manga, but its YMMV page says that "some viewers love the show for those exact qualities, stressing how it leads viewers to reach their own conclusion," implying that it has fans.

Maybe that should go too, but having an English dub doesn't disqualify it from being Horrible. There are companies who will dub anything.

Edited by rjd1922 on Jun 28th 2019 at 6:17:40 AM

Diabolik Lovers is also on the page. I didn't know it was controversial until I glanced at its Tvtropes page. It seems popular amongst anime fan and I'm pretty sure it had an English dub. Does it still qualify even though its reception isn't completely negative?

I looked at the average ratings that Diabolik Lovers got on My Anime List and Anime Planet (for the uninitiated, both websites are like IMDb for anime). On MAL, season 1 has an average of 5.66/10 and season 2 has a 6.04/10. While these ratings might not seem too bad, My Anime List is also notorious for having Four-Point Scale ratings, with very few anime having averages below a 5.0. Considering how Diabolik Lovers has been rated by over 91,400 users, this is not a good average by any stretch.

As for Anime Planet, the first season has a dismal 2.2 out of 5 stars and the second season has a slightly better 2.6 stars, with almost 15,000 users watching it. Additionally, the top-rated reviews of the series on both websites are highly scathing towards it. So based on those metrics, I’d argue that Diabolik Lovers is widely hated enough to count as horrible.

As for the argument that it got a dub, the same page mentions that Amnesia was such an unpopular that the news of a dub received Internet Backdraft. Additionally, other SBIH entries such as Garzey's Wing, Ousama Game, Tsukihime, Hand Shakers, and Genma Wars also got English dubs and home video releases despite universal panning from critics and viewers alike. So I don’t think that Diabolik Lovers getting a dub is enough to disqualify it from being horrible.

Edited by Pemulis_128 on Jun 28th 2019 at 8:14:57 AM

I would argue that the Smartphone Games section needs cleaning up. Specifically, the bootleg examples. Yes, it’s bad that there are so many plagiarising games out there, but there are so many that it’s Sturgeon's Law at this point. Unless there’s something that makes these ripoffs worse than the others, condense them into one.

(edit: I just realized that Sturgeon's Law doesn’t have examples)

Edited by TalesofUnder on Jun 30th 2019 at 6:38:05 PM

@Metaverse: I know I'm SUPER late to this, but... I'm pretty sure that it was actually the other way around, as the person who first posted the Ronde entry on So Bad It's Horrible. That video ripped it off from my entry and some of the first edits others made on it. (It's been on there a LONG time. If you check the main history page for Horrible/Video Games, I added it in 2011, and the rewrite to its form prior to removal was in March 2012. It's POSSIBLE depending on when in 2012 the video was originally released that it came first and the rewrite was plagiarized from that, but it seems a stretch.)

EDIT: I suspect the same is also the case for the Zusar Vasar plagiarism.

EDIT 2: Checking, the Zusar Vasar entry was in 2010, so it DEFINITELY was a case of plagiarizing from TV Tropes, which lends credence to the idea that the Ronde one was a similar case.

Edited by Nezumi on Jun 30th 2019 at 10:24:52 AM

This was recently added to Tabletop Games:

• Privilege Check, by full-time edgelord James Desborough, purports to be a parody of Political Correctness Gone Mad misery-poker internet arguments. It falls down on several levels. First, the rules are extremely bad; the "win condition" is an argument over who wins. Assuming that this is forgivable because it's a parody, you then run into the bucketloads of Unfortunate Implications and bad jokes that anyone who's familiar with Desborough's publishing history^note the misogyny-laden "Slayer's Guide to Female Gamers", rape spells for a third-party D&D sourcebook, a card game about tentacle hentai, and kickstarting a Gor RPG was probably already expecting: there's a card taking a lazy and lame potshot at body positivity, a card making fun of people on the autism spectrum, the "Depressed" card has a wolf paw on the stick figure's head, and even a card that implies anyone Desborough considers Ambiguously Brown is doing it deliberately for an excuse to guilt trip people. Finally, the production values aren't even good; the "fat person" stick figure on the card shitting on body positivity is clearly the standard stick figure with a circle drawn over it in MS Paint...in the wrong shade, so you can visibly see how it was done.

I feel that this example is focusing too much on the offensive aspect of the game, which is specifically said to not count, and on criticizing Desborough and his views in a way that probably violates Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.

Whoever wrote that sounds like one hell of a passive aggresive person. Perhaps cut it, maybe?

"full-time edgelord"

Cut this.

If the game is genuinely terrible rather than just potentially offensive, rewrite it to emphasize that; otherwise, cut it.

The only things I can find about the game are people talking about how controversial it is. I only found one review, but it's written by a social justice advocate, the exact opposite of the game's target audience, and is focused solely on criticizing the game's message rather than its gameplay quality.

“Full time edgelord”?

We’re not Tumblr or Youtube, people. Nuke the current example, but rewrite it if there’s any evidence of people finding the gameplay SBIH.

Of course! Didn't SBIH said that merely being offensive is not enough to quality a work as horrible?

Yeah, but some horrible things are offensive. When it comes to tabletop games, F.A.T.A.L. and Racial Holy War come to mind.

Horrible.Animated Films has this entry:

Chop Kick Panda, a 40-minute Kung Fu Panda knockoff (no matter how much creator Renegade Animation and Netflix try to deny it), has horrible and cheap animation, bad voice acting, unfunny jokes (most of the "humor" involves the main character trying to do a move, only to break his back), and jokes that have been used in over a million other cartoons. Three-fourths of the cartoon is taken up by these unfunny, repetitious gags (that is, if you could even call them gags), so then the last 10 minutes finally have the main character fighting the villain... but all he does is continuously hit the villain in the face with a mop over and over. Watch a review of it here.

My problems with the entry:

• I Hate Everything found the film to be So Okay, It's Average here, while Bobsheaux said he liked it here. PhantomStrider's comment on the latter video shares the same opinion as Bob. I feel their assessments are accurate, myself.
• This fails the notable professional critics requirement, even if we look past Internet Caustic Critics.

I want to delete the entry, but I want your thoughts, too. I think you can find it online, if you want to assess it for yourself.

In fact, I’ve seen plenty of SBIH entries, mostly on the Western Animation page, that violate that rule, only citing internet critics.

This was added to Advertising, removed with no edit reason, and then re-added.

• Perhaps the most disliked trailer of 2016, the initial American trailer for Ghostbusters may have contributed heavily to the film's troubles in the months leading up to release. Being badly cut and heavily bland was bad enough, but what put this trailer squarely into Horrible territory was director Paul Feig's reaction to the criticism: making it look purely misogynistic. It's telling that the next American trailer, which was only slightly better, included a line spoken by Leslie Jones that pretty much sums up the cast and crew's feelings about the hate this trailer got particularly from the alt-right ("I don't know if that was a race thing or a lady thing, but I'm mad as hell!"), and the hate this trailer got was beaten only by a next-episode trailer for the Kalos League arc of Pokémon XY.

The actual trailer's quality only has a brief mention in the example, and the rest is dedicated to the staff's reaction to the criticism the trailer got, which sounds more like Overshadowed by Controversy than SBiH. I suspect a possible agenda behind this example, given the controversial subject matter and un-neutral wording, but it might be salvageable if it's rewritten to focus more on the quality (or lack thereof).

Edited by Someoneman on Jul 13th 2019 at 9:11:08 AM

I would recommend cutting or commenting out the Ghostbusters example since it focuses almost entirely on the reaction to the criticism instead of the actual trailer’s quality.

Edited by Pemulis_128 on Jul 13th 2019 at 1:02:06 PM

Cut since it focuses more on the reaction to the criticism rather than the actual trailer.