So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

• Regardless of your thoughts of Coal Chamber, one thing that both sides agree on is that their cover of Peter Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey" is indefensibly awful on all fronts. The dynamic synthesized instrumentation and distinctive vocals of the original are replaced with generic nu-metal screams and shouts. If that wasn't bad enough, it features a guest spot from Ozzy Osbourne of all people, who sounds even more off-key and asthmatic than usual. To make matters worse, the song features Ozzy and Dez Fafara shouting "MONKEY!!!!" at the top of their lungs over and over trying to sound badass but completely failing in spectacular fashion. One must wonder how drugged-out a legend like Osbourne had to have been to have signed up to do a terrible nu-metal cover of such an iconic synth-pop tune.

The video has a lot of likes and some positive comments.

The video has 21k likes and 1.6k dislikes. That's an easy cut.

Looks like it's just one guy complaining. Cut.

Edited by Brainulator9 on Mar 1st 2020 at 2:12:14 PM

Because I know this'll start this debate, I'll defend Vanity Plates as works on this wiki with my life. They might not have plots, but they are a genuine art form with a genuine fanbase and can very much be horrible. With that said:

• Hikon Film Video Distribution's logo is another bad one: an image of a cloudy sky is shown only to "ripple" to a video of a sunset sky over a beach just a while later, rendering the first image redundant, the logo's general animation reeks of some of the most cheesiest effects ever seen in an '80s home video logo, looking like it was made on Photoshop or Microsoft Power Point, and while the music is fine (if a bit strange), the "Hikon, Hikon, Hikon...!" chanting, shattering glass sound and one of the potential voiceovers (drunk-sounding male voices shouting "A HIKON FILM!" loudly in unison) are too over-the-top, thus topping off an already ridiculous logo.

I've been part of the logo community for quite some time, and genuine reception is that this is DEFINITELY So Bad, It's Good. Not to mention, it fits the horror films it appears in front of with its weirdness.

Edited by AlmightyKingPrawn on Mar 7th 2020 at 3:49:24 PM

Yeah, I'd say that's definitely So Bad, It's Good.

I'm fine with vanity plates being on the page, but that one can be thrown out.

Why isn’t Raid: Shadow Legends on the Horrible.Smartphone Games? One search of it on You Tube will show people saying it’s the most terrible thing to ever exist.

Ummm...all I've heard about it are positive things. Maybe that's just because the YouTubers I watch have to advertise it a lot, but they all talk about how much they love playing it...

Look up “Raid Shadow Legends is terrible”. You’ll get my point.

That's searching for negative opinions, though. If you search anything under "____ is terrible" you'll find tons of people bashing that thing; that doesn't mean the game itself is horrible or that it has a horrible, horrible reputation; like I said, all I've ever heard about it are positive things.

I'm not saying it absolutely doesn't count for SBIH; just that searching specifically for people bashing the game skews what sort of opinions we'll see and doesn't paint the full picture.

I mean, right off the bat, searching just the game's title alone tells me that it has:

• 3.9/5 on Google Play
• 4.8/5 on the Apple Store
• 3.5/5 on Facebook

That doesn't sound horrible to me.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 9th 2020 at 3:01:36 PM

Oh. I do get your point about searching negative opinions. That’s confirmation bias.

I just searched “raid shadow legends” and those negative videos still show up. Does that actually mean anything or did my previous search skewed the results for me? Some of those videos have over a million views too.

Would that change if the reviews took a turn for the worst?

Edited by PlasmaPower on Mar 9th 2020 at 4:02:03 PM

IDK; but the game is rated way too highly to really count anyway.

Edit: Maybe? That's a big if, though; and looking at the views of those videos alone doesn't tell us anything. You'd need to see how many people liked those videos compared to the dislikes and get a feel for if the comments agree or disagree. That would tell you how many people agree, and even then, the ratings would need to plummet in order for this game to count.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 9th 2020 at 3:06:10 PM

I don't know about you, but I would suggest cutting Webcomics. I kinda feel like it suffers from the same problems as Horrible/Fan Fiction and Horrible/Fan Film, specifically in that some of the entries could be seen as backhanded recommendations. Also, aren't webcomics technically Web Originals, whose SBIH page was cut years ago?

Raid: Shadow Legends sounds more like Hype Aversion.

Agreed. Most of Raid: Shadow Legends' infamy comes from the fact that their ads and sponsorship are being continuously being spammed throughout YouTube. Other than that, it's basically another mobile game.

unless you count the PC port

Edited by Siegfried1337 on Mar 9th 2020 at 1:50:59 AM

Hype Aversion sounds right. Never played it myself and don't have any plans to, but I've also seen a lot of YouTubers advertise it, and the Google Play Store rating (I have an Android phone) is pretty positive.

And yeah, searching for "[whatever] is terrible" isn't going to get results for positive reviews.

Edit: As for Horrible.Webcomics, whether it should be cut depends on what sort of examples it's attracting. Horrible.Web Original and Horrible.Fanfic were cut because they were magnets for drama importation, and the latter also had a buttload of No Lewdness violations, since a lot of examples involved Rule 34.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 9th 2020 at 4:46:46 AM

I think I said this before, but my issue is that, if the lewdness and edit warring were both rendered non-issues, there's still the matter of such works being inherently user-generated content, which in general are not held to the same standards as professional productions.

A lot of Horrible.Webcomics, plus Horrible.Lets Play and Horrible.Game Mods is drama-importing.

Some entries on Horrible.Literature are as well, especially under Authors, which devote more time to their "antics" than the books.

Edited by lalalei2001 on Mar 9th 2020 at 5:27:14 AM

Opposed to cutting Horrible.Webcomics, but keep personal antics out of it.

Man, I haven't touched SBIH in a long while, but I just came back and see that a lot of things have changed. I'm glad there is a cleanup topic since I also thought the discussion pages weren't very efficient. Anyway, I noticed that a lot of the entries are just one bullet entries that used to be several bullet points, but got removed later. The thing is, they didn't really edit the contents of those bullet points, so some of the entries end up being awkward to read with their reasoning all over the place. Not to mention that some of them are very wordy. I'm considering trying to rewrite certain entries so that they can be more concise and clear, but I don't want to do something too drastic without checking if that's okay first.

I never saw the Fanfic and Web Original pages, but the Webcomic page doesn't seem as bad as descriptions of those two. I cleaned up some examples that started complaining specifically about the authors rather than their work.

Remember when I hid those list entries? Well now Dongwa Chan is attacking me in the dms as "deleting someone's opinion". Apparently, you can only "delete YMMV entries that are factually incorrect"? Am I genuinely in the wrong? Should I unhide those entries? Or is it all bullcrap? How do I respond? I'm scared I'm gonna get banned.

Edited by AlmightyKingPrawn on Mar 10th 2020 at 7:24:09 AM

Let me put it this way:

SBIH relies on two things:

• The work being objectively hated by a lot of people, to the point where positive opinions about it are rare to come by.
• The information in the example being accurate, not bashy, and not biased.

The hidden examples failed to be objectively bad, and to not be biased. Hiding them is completely valid; SBIH isn't about one person's opinion.

Now someone's put the entry for Contra: Rogue Corps back onto the Horrible page, albeit commented out, with the defense that "the write-up is good".

Well written example =/= Actually an example