this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
43 points (97.8% liked)

PC Gaming

8576 readers
234 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
43
Controversial games of the past. (lemmy.ca)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm just sitting here thinking about all the hoopla around palworld right now and I was wondering what other titles out there have been in the controversy filled category in the past few years/decade? I can think of a few, but my game interests are kinda narrow.

What are some of your picks?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Good points, but a few of these are mixing up controversy with genuine critics.

  • Arkham Knight's performance was terrible at launch. But many Ubisoft games could make this list, they were quite famous for their buggy games for some time.
  • Along with the Diablo 2 remake, you could add the Warcraft 3 remaster as well which was nonetheless apparently abysmal, but which also removed the original game from Battle.NET. We may also add most remakes and remasters, it feels like an exception when a remaster is generally appreciated.
  • Like Starfield, Fallout 4 was also heavily criticized at launch for the same reasons: unengaging story, always the same bugs, lackluster roleplay due to the voiced character... But maybe that's always the case with every new Bethesda game.
  • If I remember correctly, on of the main issues with Alien: Colonial Marines wasn't so much that it was a terrible and unfinished game (which it was), but that the demo released was very engaging, and a completely unfair representation of the actual game, which was considered false advertising.
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Did they actually fix the performance of AK or did we just get better hardware to run the game better? And I'm also recalling some gameplay trailer which was sped up to seem like the game was running at 60 fps. But, yea, horrid performance is mostly genuine critique.

With Fallout 4, I think the biggest issue with roleplay was the dialogue options, not the voice acting per se. Basically each dialogue selection was 4 options: "Yes", "Yes (but snarky)", "No", and some non sequitur... give or take, it's been a hot minute since I last played it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Did they actually fix the performance of AK or did we just get better hardware to run the game better?

They actually pulled it from Steam for a while, and re-released it properly a few weeks later. But yes, they ended up fixing it properly, and it's probably one of the best-looking games of its generation on PC. The photo mode, in particular, is stellar.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They actually pulled it from Steam for a while, and re-released it properly a few weeks later.

Ooh, right. Completely forgot about that. And, yea the game is definitely a looker.

Back when the game was fairly new I did get it as a bundled game with my 2nd gpu. My SLI setup was quite the stutterfest with it, and I don't think it even supported SLI well, or at all. So I shelved it until several years later, and played it through with a lot beefier pc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Same: I got both Arkham Knight and The Witcher 3 with my 980! That's actually one of the reasons I bought one: I had planned to buy both games anyway, it made me "save" (as in, not spend) that much money. And given that it was NVIDIA's flagship at the time, it worked quite well with that GPU and I wouldn't have noticed the performance issues if I had not read so much backlash about them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

it feels like an exception when a remaster is generally appreciated.

Don't think I ever heard something bad about the Starcraft remaster.
The Yakuza Kiwami games are supposedly good too, but I never played them or the originals.
The Resident Evil games are more like remakes, the only bad thing I heard is about 4. But that was from the perspective of challenge runners, apparently some weirdness going on there. But supposedly absolutely fine for casual gaming, but I never played any of these either.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Off the top of my head:

  • I don't remember which one, but one recent Resident Evil remaster. Must be 4, if you say so!
  • As I mentioned, Warcraft III: Reforged was (is?) considered terrible
  • The GTA III, GTA: Vice City and GTA: San Andreas remasters, which are pretty bad ports of the Android/iOS versions
  • Batman: Return to Arkham
  • Dark Souls: Remastered
  • Metro 2033: Redux
  • Halo: The MCC as well, although I heard that it got a lot better down the line
  • Didn't some Final Fantasy recent remasters / new releases get criticized?

From what I recall, most of these were criticized for lacking the hand-crafted textures and lighting that the originals had. For obvious reasons, since most remasters are AI-enhanced textures, upgraded engines and little to no handcraft ever comes into play.