Nowadays I'm a bit surprised how fondly people talk about many games that on release seemed to get lots of complaints, to the point that at least I was ready to believe that they really are quite poor and uninteresting games which will fade into oblivion soon (but didn't, quite the opposite). Which such games do you have in mind that have become cult classics in spite of this? Can be PC or console games.

Let's leave out cases where the complaints were mainly about buggy release version or too high system requirements, because then the list would be huge. :) (Fallouts, almost any Microprose game, any flight sim etc.).

Of course one reason for this phenomenon can be that only those who like(d) a game keep talking about it years later, while the people who didn't like it have long forgotten them. Also, complainers are usually more vocal. Anyway, I'll give a couple that spring to my mind:

1. Baldur's Gate

- "AD&D system is old, restricted and stupid", ie. other RPGs (especially console JPRGs) were supposed to have much more interesting game systems, so there was no reason whatsoever to play BG. I personally think many Square RPG magic systems were illogical and too complicated usually, even though it is admirable how Square seemed to change their magic system completely from game to game (even inside one series, e.g. Final Fantasy). To me it seemed a bit pointless to learn yet another magic system in every game in the series.

- "The semi-real time combat system is poor and irritating". Yet, afterwards people didn't seem to mind it that much anymore. I must say I'm not a big fan of BG combat system either, but it gets the job done and doesn't destroy the whole game experience like it sounded from the complaints.

- "Big empty areas with nothing interesting in them.". Well, maybe certain areas...


2. Unreal

Judging by the user comments, this game sounded like a very mediocre FPS with nothing to differentiate it from the rest of the generic FPSes. Especially the weapons were supposed to be very disappointing, with no feel of power in them and poor weapon sounds. Yet, in the end I think it became one of the most successful PC FPS games.

3. Deus Ex

Part of the complaints were apparently related to bugs and high system requirements, but also I think many seemed to complain the game is not just that interesting, the levels were made too predictable (e.g. two different corridors, one for those who like to fight their way through, and the other for those who prefer sneaking) etc. By the sound of it, I was expecting a rather mediocre game.

4. Diablo 1-2

- '"Too simple gameplay, just clicking away.". Frankly, I tend to agree with this, but there's no denying those two games became classics.

I can't speak for Deus Ex as I didn't follow its release at the time, but I remember the other titles you mention being released to, almost exclusively, extremely positive reviews...

Where are you getting these quotes, if I may ask?

Arcanum.

It was an unheard of, unforgiving, buggy RPG, in a world that couldn't decide if it was Sci-Fi or Fantasy, released by an unknown company. That game fanished from the first run faster than most any other game I'd seen. I got it within a year of release, in a 2 pack bundled with.. Throne of Darkness I think it was.

I thought Baldur's Gate was a huge success and saved the RPG genre on the PC.

Usenet mostly (e.g. in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action and csipg.rpg). I wasn't talking about magazine reviews, but user comments. And of course they are not exact quotes, but complaints that I think I saw quite often.

But like I said, it could have been that complainers and detractors just used more voice. Anyway, that was the personal feeling I initially got from said games, judging by the comments. Could be just me. :) Yeah, that's what everyone is saying now... :) I think the combat system (as well as using AD&D system) got quite a lot of flak from users back then, even to the point but many people were ready to dismiss the game completely.

But as said, that is just my gut-feeling and memory of the discussions...

Yeah, I would say those comments are a very, very poor representation of how those games were received, among gamers and critics alike.

Zolgar's example of Arcanum seems more fitting to what you're talking about. BG, D1 and D2 were pretty much instant classics.

Edit: It's very possible that you just heard the opinions of a (very) vocal minority, but it's kinda sad how much influence they seem to have had on your own view of those titles back then.

All of those games received rave reviews back in the days, and are still considered classics. Perhaps you're thinking of cult classics?

Not sure if it fits even in that category, but Clayfighter 63½ has a considerably higher user score than critic score... actually, the user score is still pretty low, but apparently there are a number of people who actually like it.

You misunderstood me there. There's a reason why I put the "poor" in quotes.

That was just my gut-feeling about the early discussion of said games in the main gaming forums back then, ie. feedback from players (in Usenet). But as said, maybe it was simply that´people who didn't like the BG combat system or AD&D setting bitched about it loudly, while those who loved them were just quietly enjoying the game. Still, quite a few people seemed to hate those games with passion.

It was quite different from games like Descent, Descent Freespace, Doom or Ultima Underworld, where I don't remember hearing any major detracting comments. Practically everyone loved those games, or remained quiet. :)

Yeah, I don't really recall much complaint about Baldur's Gate, Unreal, Deus Ex and Diablo 1/2 back in the day. Certainly there were (and are) people that gripe and complain about EVERY game that comes out, but for those games they were by far the minority even back when they were first released.

The bit about Baldur's Gate saving the AD&D CRPG wasn't just posthumous - it was part of the pre-release hype, and when it was released I remember the community largely agreed that it lived up to that hype.

Also: JRPGs? Srsly? AD&D 2nd Ed. has it's problems, sure, but JRPGs of the 90s are the last thing I would look to for a favorable comparison. I mean, back in the day I remember much ado about GURPs and Fallout's SPECIAL system, but the RP system in most JRPGs were terribad (and half the time most of the numbers didn't seem to mean shit anyway).

Yeah, look at Yahtzee, he bashes every game put infront of him, and people love him for it! >.>

Maybe the lesson here is to not trust Usenet comments as a fair representation of what the rest of the world thinks of a game?

It's very strange to me how these comments completely warped your view on these titles that were, pretty much from the moment they were released (and still are), considered absolute classics by the vast majority of PC gamers, communities and critics.

I see I may have worded the first message poorly. My meaning was not to say I am surprised people nowadays like the listed games, but more about the contrast, that there seemed to be loud bitching about the games, considering that they actually became strong classics (and in many cases also strong hits = sales).

But if everyone else says that pretty much everyone was just praising those games back in the day, then I must assume I'm just imagining it that e.g. there was a lot of complaints about "yet another restricted and cliched AD&D fantasy mediaval setting" and the realtime combat system of e.g. BG.
Back in the day, it pretty much was the major international discussion place about games (and other stuff), before it became more common to discuss stuff on different web forums, like here in GoG for example. I have no idea if Usenet still has any activity at all, or if it has died out completely already. I haven't visited there for years.

People, please stop being so defensive. :) This wasn't a jab at your beloved games, heck even I like the listed games (except maybe a bit bored with Diablo 2).

There are always complaints about any game that gets released, no matter how good it is -- it's simply impossible to please everyone, and some people just complain for the sake of complaining.

I think the defensive attitude you're seeing is a reaction to your listing of what the majority of PC gamers consider some of the very best games of all time and insinuating that they were generally poorly received upon release, which is simply not true at all. There are certainly games that fit your description of "poorly received but became a classic over time", but those five games don't.

It's fair too early to call it anything like a classic. However, there does seem to be a sizeable number of people who claim that Alpha Protocol has much more to offer than the reviews it got at launch might suggest.