It’s the weakest part of an otherwise-strong sci fi tale—and a surprisingly smart one, too. There’s nothing revolutionary about Quantum Break’s time travel, but it’s remarkably coherent and isn’t afraid to throw around phrases like “Novikov’s Self-Consistency Principle.” It’s a game that at least pays lip service to hard sci fi, which isn’t something we see often.
This is the most frustrated I’ve been with a shoddy port in years. There have been other high-profile trainwrecks in the recent past, like Batman: Arkham Knight and Assassin’s Creed: Unity. But I didn’t like those games, aside from their obvious PC woes.
I love Quantum Break. I’d love to see Remedy make more Quantum Break, especially given the (if you’re paying attention) cliffhanger of an ending. It’s an excellent story, a solid TV show, and a decent game all wrapped into one package. And some part of me is just happy Remedy still gets to be Remedy—a developer spending years on weird singleplayer experiences and actively pushing the bounds of video games as a medium.
But maybe this one should’ve stayed on Xbox. Or, hell, maybe it should’ve come to PC six months from now. This Shigeru Miyamoto gets brought up so often it’s cliché at this point, and yet still all-too-often applicable: “A delayed game is eventually good. A bad game is bad forever.”
That’s not quite true in this era of title updates and day one patches, but when you make a first impression this bad it might as well be.
Sign up for Computerworld eNewsletters.