Superman 64
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
on edit: meaning in relation to game quality, I know the events were not coterminous.
Also, some context for the game itself, from the article itself:
> critical reviews were extremely negative, claiming it to be one of the worst video games ever made and panning its unresponsive controls, technical flaws, repetitive gameplay, overuse of distance fog, and poor graphics
It's interesting how this game came to be, because Titus Interactive was a pretty well known studio that had a decent track record until that point. I would be interested to read more about how exactly it happened that they've released this monstrocity.
Makes me think of the recently released Duke Nukem Forever 2001 build [1]. Everyone surely knows of the turkey DNF became, but back in 2001 it really looked [2] awesome.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32274895
All the footnotes next to the quotes lead to interviews with the head of Titus on the subject of Superman.
In an era with Goose Game, Paper's Please and Unpacking, people understand that just because this is a video game doesn't mean it needs to fit into a handful of pre-existing niches - games can do whatever they want, but ET pre-dates that era.
I expect if you had shot a found footage mockumentary movie in 1940 (before even Citizen Kane was shown) audiences wouldn't even have understood what you were trying to do. It wouldn't matter whether you did a good job or not, reviews are going to say it's a bad movie because the reviewer does not have a framework in which to assess it.
There's also a lot of individual mechanics for Superman (flight, speed, strength, laser vision, etc.) that are probably challenging to get right. It's easier to work with more limited heroes.
Perhaps, but given that Superman is not from Earth it could go the Dragon Ball route.