Night Dive Studios, the same company responsible for the upcoming System Shock revival, have previously updated the original Turok: The Dinosaur Hunter to steam a little over a year ago now, and recently they announced that they are finally releasing the remaster of Turok 2 on March 16.
Disclaimer: I'm quite excited. Turok 2 is easily one of my favorite childhood games. I'm quite blinded by nostalgia, but I'm aware that the game hasn't aged well at all, especially as a first person shooter well known on the N64.
However I'm a bit butthurt about those saying that the game was always bad, even when it came out, and that it was pointless to port to PC (again). It's a minority that I've seen say this, and my initial reaction was knee-jerk and biased. However I did get to thinking, this game back in the day got almost universal praise.
It's obviously fine to feel that it wasn't a good game personally, and in hindsight it's only like 6 people I've seen talk negatively, but I'd like to know if other people felt the same.
I know the answer is obvious from the perspective of today, but I'm curious to know if any of you felt the same way about Turok 2 back when it came out. I want to know if there are more people out there that felt the game wasn't good at the time, and why. It'd be interesting to me to see other arguments on a game I've loved quite dearly.
Personally (and again, take my opinion with a grain of salt) I can't see what was so negative about the game compared to other first person shooters at the time.
I do know that it may have seemed slower paced compared to the likes of Doom and Quake, and even to its own predecessor, but that shouldn't make it bad. That just makes it different.
I've always felt that Turok 2 was the best of the N64 trilogy, easily having the best visuals, meaty combat, and overall gameplay.
Yes, it was very back-tracky, but I'd argue games like Doom and Duke Nukem 3D were as well.
Disclaimer: I'm quite excited. Turok 2 is easily one of my favorite childhood games. I'm quite blinded by nostalgia, but I'm aware that the game hasn't aged well at all, especially as a first person shooter well known on the N64.
However I'm a bit butthurt about those saying that the game was always bad, even when it came out, and that it was pointless to port to PC (again). It's a minority that I've seen say this, and my initial reaction was knee-jerk and biased. However I did get to thinking, this game back in the day got almost universal praise.
RockPaperShotgun [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/02/28/turok-2-pc-remaster-release-date/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rockpapershotgun%2Fsteam+%28Rock%2C+Paper%2C+Shotgun%3A+Steam+RSS%29]
It's obviously fine to feel that it wasn't a good game personally, and in hindsight it's only like 6 people I've seen talk negatively, but I'd like to know if other people felt the same.
I know the answer is obvious from the perspective of today, but I'm curious to know if any of you felt the same way about Turok 2 back when it came out. I want to know if there are more people out there that felt the game wasn't good at the time, and why. It'd be interesting to me to see other arguments on a game I've loved quite dearly.
Personally (and again, take my opinion with a grain of salt) I can't see what was so negative about the game compared to other first person shooters at the time.
I do know that it may have seemed slower paced compared to the likes of Doom and Quake, and even to its own predecessor, but that shouldn't make it bad. That just makes it different.
I've always felt that Turok 2 was the best of the N64 trilogy, easily having the best visuals, meaty combat, and overall gameplay.
Yes, it was very back-tracky, but I'd argue games like Doom and Duke Nukem 3D were as well.