For consistency sake, let’s say that any game that’s >or=7/10 at what it’s trying to do while having a popular perception of being a <5/10 game in general would count. Want to specify that this is more about the perception of the game compared to, say, a game just being really niche.
My personal Go-to for this would probably be the Callisto Protocol, because while it certainly did have some troubles at launch they were massively overblown. IMO most of the hate for it comes down to people expecting it to be Dead Space 4 with a new name, ignoring the devs the multitude of times they said that it’s something else before release, and then getting mad when it released and wasn’t dead space 4 under a new name.
The problem with starfield is not technical but that the writing is pretty crappy in general. Technical or feature problems can be fixed (cyberpunk or no man’s sky did it) but the story can’t be extensively rewritten without making it a different game.
Is the story that bad? I played a few hours and I was into it. Does it get worse later? I set the game aside because it was buggy and didn’t exactly run well. I’m planning to pick it up again after it gets some updates.
In the 6 or so hours I played, it was the inventory and menus that drove me crazy more than anything else. They are so poorly designed and implemented that I wonder if anyone actually played the game during testing. I can’t see myself continuing the game until they are improved.
Liked the main story well enough. Not as good as Morrowind but on par with FO3/4 and Skyrim which I grade as mediocre. Starfield does have some of my most enjoyed faction quests though.
Biggest failings to me were the repetitive POIs and half finished sub systems that while functional could have been so much better. I’m still happy with my purchase and see myself playing again over the coming years but it’s understandable why so many people walked away from it.