Some hype + poor sales like Haze, Too Human or almost any Wii 3rd party hardcore game.

I think it mainly depends on whether the game made profits or at least did break-even.

After the break-even point it really depends on the franchise. From a FF game for example I expect huge profits for SE and not only the gain a small one.

For MadWorld for example I think it will be a success if it dropped a fair amount of money for Sega and Platinum. I mean its a new IP in a really niche genre.

A real flop is for me a game like Haze which didnt generalize any profits as the companies biggest game of the year.

I meant general consensus.  I know games (and films as another example) are about money in many cases, but I want a good game/film and rate a good/great title higher than a better selling piece of crap.

Of course, with reviews things get subjective, but I think Heavenly Sword reviewed okay really.  Personally if I use a site like metacritic I ignore obvious outliers - i.e. if say 75% plus of reviews are 80% and there are some really low reviews I usually discount them as a taste issue.  If the majority of decent review sites (and more general internet gamer reaction) can agree a game is very good then I'm happy with that.  Both metacritic and to a lesser extent Gamerankings have flaws - but then there are many flaws with game reviewing in general IMHO so its a given some of that is also going to pass over to such aggregation sites.

I think reviews are also interesting to consider when games seem to underperform for strange reasons.  For example great games like Grim Fandango, Beyond Good & Evil, ICO, etc. that all underperformed on first release yet were all fantastic games by any measure.

Mirror's Edge, going OT for a moment, is a good game with a great idea, but the execution was a little wanting I think and many reviews fairly pointed this out.  Even with practice some moves, elements really were just too unintuitive and led to player frustration.  Also they needed a stronger core story and a broader set of gaming mechanics IMHO.  Not shooting (although sadly I bet that's what they go for with the sequel) but probably more stealth/exploration/detective work mixed in with the high adrenalian chases.

So don't think a specifc review per se, more the critical reception of the game.  Was it a classic?  Did it redefine the genre?  Half Life is a good example of this from way back on PC - that title totally re-wrote the rule book on FPS, became an instant (and deserved) critical hit and is still being copied today.

Profits are not everything. Gaining mindshare can compensate barely breaking even or even slight losses because it calls for future investments in the franchise or at least in the same team.

A flop always entices, in my opinion, all of the following three:
- diminishing the perceived "value" of the developers for investors
- diminishing the perceived "value" of the franchise or brand for investors, or failing to establish any for new IPs
- losing money

As such a game like Haze is a flop. A game like Okami is not, nor is Mirror's Edge.

This is a pretty generic definition but it applies not only for games but for any product or service of any nature. Those who know Project Management will recognize this.

I think that the best definition of a flop is when the developers goals set to the product are not met. And by goals I mean not only the goals for the product itself but the product within the context of the organization.

Example: a game might have terrible sales and good reviews, but if the goal is not to have huge sales but to establish a new brand, it could be considered successful.

Another example, the PS3: As a console, so far it has fallen way below sales expectations and could be considered a flop on that basis. However, if Sony decided that it was worth to sacrifice the PS3 in order to push Blue Ray (the BR drive in the PS3 was one of the main reasons for delays and high costs), than the PS3 can be considered a success by Sony Corp since it fulfill is main goal, Blue Ray, instead of consoles leadership.

Success of failure depend on how you see it.

There can't just be one type of flop, there have to be multiple definitions.

Sales flop: The game gets great reviews from critics and is generally liked. Yet for some reason it sells far below expectations. The developers most likely lose lots of money in the process. Some examples are Psychonauts, Okami, and Beyond Good & Evil.

Critical flop: The game gets lots of hype before release, yet turns out to be only average/below average/horrible. The game can still have good sales, stopping it from being a sales flop. Some examples are Killzone, 50 Cent: Bulletproof, and Pac-Man (Atari 2600).

Total flop: The hype can vary, but the game is of average/not very good/crap quality, or it is a good enough game but brings nothing new to the table. It gets mixed/average or low reviews, and also sees very low sales. Some examples are Haze, Too Human, and Advent Rising.

Ultimate shit: These games just plain suck ass, in quality, sales, and reception. They are also often made fun of for how horrible they are. Perfect examples are Superman 64, the CD-i Zelda games, Shaq-Fu, and Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing.

If the game is not profitable, then it is a flop. I also think that there are different degrees of flopping.

It only has to do with 2 things. Everything other than this is made up by people who don't know what they're talking about (ie most people on this site).

1. Publisher's expectations.
2. Profit.

no money gained from the game [x]

and or

game sucks ass [x]

=

a flop

For me it's if the devs didn't make any money back, and/or if it doesn't reach expectations.