For PC gaming news and discussion.
PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- 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.)
- 1 user online
- 64 users / day
- 327 users / week
- 848 users / month
- 3.13K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 4.49K Posts
- 28.9K Comments
- Modlog
That’s pretty hilariously bad, especially as the only reason I read the review was out of disbelief that it might be a sequel to the 1992 game.
TL:DR
"…the gaming industry isn’t a charity, and people deserve to know what they’re potentially spending their hard-earned money on. Here’s what you need to know: the problem with Flashback 2 isn’t merely that it is buggy, sometimes to a hilarious degree. Instead, the main issue is that even if the bugs weren’t present, it still wouldn’t be worth its current price tag. "
…huh, I thought “Flashback 2” was released years ago, but that one seems to have been a remake/re-imagining of sorts of the original. And that one was pretty bad as well, it seems.
And wasn’t Fade to black more or less a sequel to Flashback as well? Seems like the Flashback sequels/remakes are fairly cursed… weird.
I do have fond memories of the original, though. Kinda disappointing there isn’t really a worthwhile follow up to it.