Bad CPC games you can't help but "love"

[Anthony Flack]

It turns out Burnin' Rubber is one of my favourite 8 bit racers, but I had to get used to it.

It's really quite responsive despite the framerate, but it's the kind of racer where you not only have to brake on the tight corners, you really have to know where the tight corners are coming. But I find its uncompromising nature quite compelling. I just wish the opponent cars would stop having accidents in front of me during the later laps. Still I keep trying.

Pang is an excellent port that is perfectly suited to the Plus hardware, and it's just too bad I get bored of Pang pretty quickly. Nobody's fault; the Plus needed more games like this. And it's too bad Robocop 2 was set in Euro-platformer hell. Avoid countless fiddly traps and shoot nothing! It's not unplayable but you wouldn't go out of your way to recommend it to somebody. 

Talking of Alcon 2020 being a 7 or an 8 really is an insult to the work I think, but it just goes to show you can't please everybody. And seriously guys, Radzone needs more respect - 5/10, no! I refuse to accept that is a bad game I like, it is a misunderstood classic.

[abalore]

This is one of the cases I don't understand in CPCGR:

A work of copy & paste elements from other 3 games has a lot higher score than the original. With all respect to Wizcat, the effort put on this Frankenstein game is nothing compared with what the programmers of Barbarian, Beyond the Ice Palace and IK+ did, to not talk about the creativity involved. I don't know if the final result is so much enjoyable for that score boost, but... really IK+ is so bad and the exact same thing is so good?

[abalore]

And just to clarify, the main reason I came back to the CPC world after many years was because I discovered the AMSTRAD CPC FILES at ftp.nvg.unit.no (now a different domain). So I owe a lot to @Nich Campbell. Criticism about CPCGR are not personal attacks.

[scorp6128+]

I don't think Burnin' Rubber is a bad game.
Optically it looks really nice and I like the change of daylight, the change of light and shade within the game.
I don't find it super responsive, quite a little late while controlling.
But all in all it stands as one of the best racers for the CPC.

In my opinion Alcon 2020 doesn't belong to this topic at all.
Optically and technically impressive and despite of its difficulty surely one of the all time top shooters for the amstrad.
Also outstanding in its overall presentation, which makes it a real gem for the CPC.

Now my "bad" game: Marble Madness Deluxe Edition (cpr)
Surely the arcade, amiga and console versions are so much better than the poor CPC port (Speccy).
The game idea is just brilliant and I didn't know it back in 80s and 90s. I learned about it just a few weeks ago.
I was more the kind of shoot-em-up-gamer back then.

But it's there for the Amstrad and so I launch it from time to time despite no scrolling and some bugs you probably know.
Maybe one fine day we see a "Marble Madness" version for the Amstrad that does justice to the original game.

[Shaun M. Neary]

This is one of the cases I don't understand in CPCGR:

A work of copy & paste elements from other 3 games has a lot higher score than the original. With all respect to Wizcat, the effort put on this Frankenstein game is nothing compared with what the programmers of Barbarian, Beyond the Ice Palace and IK+ did, to not talk about the creativity involved. I don't know if the final result is so much enjoyable for that score boost, but... really IK+ is so bad and the exact same thing is so good?

Two different people reviewed those games though. So you're getting two very different opinions from two different mindsets. So I can understand why one got rated higher than the other.

For what it's worth, I think IK+ deserves a lot higher than 5/10 but you'd need to ask @Nich what he was thinking at the time of writing and if his mind has changed on it now.

[abalore]

This is one of the cases I don't understand in CPCGR:

A work of copy & paste elements from other 3 games has a lot higher score than the original. With all respect to Wizcat, the effort put on this Frankenstein game is nothing compared with what the programmers of Barbarian, Beyond the Ice Palace and IK+ did, to not talk about the creativity involved. I don't know if the final result is so much enjoyable for that score boost, but... really IK+ is so bad and the exact same thing is so good?

Two different people reviewed those games though. So you're getting two very different opinions from two different mindsets. So I can understand why one got rated higher than the other.

For what it's worth, I think IK+ deserves a lot higher than 5/10 but you'd need to ask @Nich what he was thinking at the time of writing and if his mind has changed on it now.

So, we got to the point. If you have inconsistent scoring, what's the reference at all? As a guide for someone to decide whether to try a game or not the usefulness dilute when you need to raise your eyes and check who is the author of the review. The site could have two scoring systems as in Rotten Tomatoes, Critics Score (Nich and his partners) and Public Score, based on users. A more complex system: sure, more useful: 100%

[Egg Master]

Talking of Alcon 2020 being a 7 or an 8 really is an insult to the work

You are interpreting my words... I explained why. It's well worth its 9/10.

[Shaun M. Neary]

This is one of the cases I don't understand in CPCGR:

A work of copy & paste elements from other 3 games has a lot higher score than the original. With all respect to Wizcat, the effort put on this Frankenstein game is nothing compared with what the programmers of Barbarian, Beyond the Ice Palace and IK+ did, to not talk about the creativity involved. I don't know if the final result is so much enjoyable for that score boost, but... really IK+ is so bad and the exact same thing is so good?

Two different people reviewed those games though. So you're getting two very different opinions from two different mindsets. So I can understand why one got rated higher than the other.

For what it's worth, I think IK+ deserves a lot higher than 5/10 but you'd need to ask @Nich what he was thinking at the time of writing and if his mind has changed on it now.

So, we got to the point. If you have inconsistent scoring, what's the reference at all? As a guide for someone to decide whether to try a game or not the usefulness dilute when you need to raise your eyes and check who is the author of the review. The site could have two scoring systems as in Rotten Tomatoes, Critics Score (Nich and his partners) and Public Score, based on users. A more complex system: sure, more useful: 100%

So agree on a score and then form an opinion?
Did we turn into robots recently or something? That's not really how it works. There's nothing wrong with people having a difference of opinion.

Or did I misunderstand?

[abalore]

This is one of the cases I don't understand in CPCGR:

A work of copy & paste elements from other 3 games has a lot higher score than the original. With all respect to Wizcat, the effort put on this Frankenstein game is nothing compared with what the programmers of Barbarian, Beyond the Ice Palace and IK+ did, to not talk about the creativity involved. I don't know if the final result is so much enjoyable for that score boost, but... really IK+ is so bad and the exact same thing is so good?

Two different people reviewed those games though. So you're getting two very different opinions from two different mindsets. So I can understand why one got rated higher than the other.

For what it's worth, I think IK+ deserves a lot higher than 5/10 but you'd need to ask @Nich what he was thinking at the time of writing and if his mind has changed on it now.

So, we got to the point. If you have inconsistent scoring, what's the reference at all? As a guide for someone to decide whether to try a game or not the usefulness dilute when you need to raise your eyes and check who is the author of the review. The site could have two scoring systems as in Rotten Tomatoes, Critics Score (Nich and his partners) and Public Score, based on users. A more complex system: sure, more useful: 100%

So agree on a score and then form an opinion?
Did we turn into robots recently or something? That's not really how it works. There's nothing wrong with people having a difference of opinion.

Or did I misunderstand?

So there is nothing wrong of me having a different opinion about the score system having flaws, right?

[cwpab]

I think the unfair scores that many games get on CPC Game Reviews is also kind of "fun", as it keeps us complaining and discussing. After all, they're personal opinions and blah, blah. (As stated by the "Review by X" label).

I love that site, and disagreeing with the scores is part of its charm. As a fun fact, I'm the one who suggested Nich adding a random game feature... And he added it about a year after! I use it a lot, because CPC Power includes way too many applications, demos and type ins in the random option.

So I hope that Nich is fine with us complaining about some scores "for fun". For example, the guy who only gave Saboteur a 7 (IMHO it's a 7 for a Playstation game, but a 10 for the CPC!) gave Gremlims 2 a 9... Dear "John Beckett", we don't hate you, but please get your tastes checked by a doctor! 

[Shaun M. Neary]

This is one of the cases I don't understand in CPCGR:

A work of copy & paste elements from other 3 games has a lot higher score than the original. With all respect to Wizcat, the effort put on this Frankenstein game is nothing compared with what the programmers of Barbarian, Beyond the Ice Palace and IK+ did, to not talk about the creativity involved. I don't know if the final result is so much enjoyable for that score boost, but... really IK+ is so bad and the exact same thing is so good?

Two different people reviewed those games though. So you're getting two very different opinions from two different mindsets. So I can understand why one got rated higher than the other.

For what it's worth, I think IK+ deserves a lot higher than 5/10 but you'd need to ask @Nich what he was thinking at the time of writing and if his mind has changed on it now.

So, we got to the point. If you have inconsistent scoring, what's the reference at all? As a guide for someone to decide whether to try a game or not the usefulness dilute when you need to raise your eyes and check who is the author of the review. The site could have two scoring systems as in Rotten Tomatoes, Critics Score (Nich and his partners) and Public Score, based on users. A more complex system: sure, more useful: 100%

So agree on a score and then form an opinion?
Did we turn into robots recently or something? That's not really how it works. There's nothing wrong with people having a difference of opinion.

Or did I misunderstand?

So there is nothing wrong of me having a different opinion about the score system having flaws, right?

Of course not. To me agreeing on a score and trying to form a different opinion around it doesn't make sense is all. 

[Nich]

A work of copy & paste elements from other 3 games has a lot higher score than the original. With all respect to Wizcat, the effort put on this Frankenstein game is nothing compared with what the programmers of Barbarian, Beyond the Ice Palace and IK+ did, to not talk about the creativity involved. I don't know if the final result is so much enjoyable for that score boost, but... really IK+ is so bad and the exact same thing is so good?

Two different people reviewed those games though. So you're getting two very different opinions from two different mindsets. So I can understand why one got rated higher than the other.

For what it's worth, I think IK+ deserves a lot higher than 5/10 but you'd need to ask @Nich what he was thinking at the time of writing and if his mind has changed on it now.

Hmmm... I gave International Karate 5/10, but I also gave the same rating to IK+ - and looking at both games now, I think IK+ is definitely the better of the two games, so it ought to be revisited. I have re-reviewed a number of games on the site in the last few years.

[Anthony Flack]

IK+ is perhaps the greatest pre-Street Fighter fighting game IMO, even if the CPC version is only adequate it was still the best thing going.

As far as shooters go, I fired up Lightforce yesterday. It's a game I used to enjoy, and it reviewed well back in 1986 - Amstrad Action gave it 90%, ACU 95%, Computing with the Amstrad 10/10. CPCGR gave it 8/10

Today, I would describe its gameplay as extremely basic, and its graphics are nice, but painfully juddery. Truly we are spoiled these days. Many of the homebrew games we have seen for the CPC in recent years wouldn't just score 10/10 on the old review scales, they would break them. 

[Shaun M. Neary]

A work of copy & paste elements from other 3 games has a lot higher score than the original. With all respect to Wizcat, the effort put on this Frankenstein game is nothing compared with what the programmers of Barbarian, Beyond the Ice Palace and IK+ did, to not talk about the creativity involved. I don't know if the final result is so much enjoyable for that score boost, but... really IK+ is so bad and the exact same thing is so good?

Two different people reviewed those games though. So you're getting two very different opinions from two different mindsets. So I can understand why one got rated higher than the other.

For what it's worth, I think IK+ deserves a lot higher than 5/10 but you'd need to ask @Nich what he was thinking at the time of writing and if his mind has changed on it now.

Hmmm... I gave International Karate 5/10, but I also gave the same rating to IK+ - and looking at both games now, I think IK+ is definitely the better of the two games, so it ought to be revisited. I have re-reviewed a number of games on the site in the last few years.

The original International Karate was such a poor Speccy port, although I did enjoy it in 1987, but then, I was 11 years old.

When I saw the C64 version of it, I wanted to fucking cry. The Amstrad was capable of it, why couldn't we have had a version like it?

[eto]

Today, I would describe its gameplay as extremely basic, and its graphics are nice, but painfully juddery.

That's exactly the point: "Today". I remember that I was blown away when I first saw it. Not just a tiny little screen, lots of colours, lots of things going on on screen. Today I agree, it's an okay game, but nothing outstanding anymore.

Amstrad Action gave it 90%, ACU 95%, Computing with the Amstrad 10/10. CPCGR gave it 8/10

I always had the impression that all of those ratings are inconsistent The range 0-6 was barely used and if we saw a "6" or less we all thought it's not worth buying it. That left a really small range of 7-10 for the actual relevant ratings.  A bit similar to what happens on cpcgamereviews with ratings for recent homebrew productions. While I can understand the reason for it I think it makes more harm than good. There are now many "okay" games getting 7/8 and "good" games in the 9/10 region. That leaves no space for really outstanding games and leading to really outstanding games getting the same 9 rating as a "good" funny little single-screen platformer.

Many of the homebrew games we have seen for the CPC in recent years wouldn't just score 10/10 on the old review scales, they would break them.

That's a normal development. Lightforce is a probably good example. Would it have been released 2 years later it would not have received 10/10.

And that todays productions look and sound fantastic doesn't make them automatically better.

Imho we should avoid that trap of giving everything 7+ as long as it's not garbage. With a scale of 0-10 the 5 should indicate "okay game, you can consider it". A "good" game should be a 7 and an outstanding game a 9. The first step of the rating process is putting it into one of those categories based on the gameplay itself, leaving aside the technical qualities or the time when it was released. This "normalizes" the rating and helps avoiding the nostalgia-trap. Then you can give one bonus point for special achievements and/or deduct one point if there are significant flaws. The bonus point could also include things that were "special" when it was released. That would lead to a more consistent rating where a good game from the past and a good game from today are rated more equally. Also good and outstanding games would overlap only if one is "really good" and the other is "outstanding with flaws".

Btw: If I would rate Lightforce it would get a solid 6 for an "okay game today" with a bonus point for "good graphics and sound, especially considering it was released in 1986".

[MartinJSUK]

The original International Karate was such a poor Speccy port


 why couldn't we have had a version like it?

I think that's called 'answering your own question'

Good jumping-off point for a general ponderance though - the technical quality of commercial CPC games was variable, to put it politely. A lot of wonderfully designed, innovative games which were popular on other systems got sluggish, ugly, awkward CPC conversions. I get the feeling that some people are more forgiving of this than others. If you're used to other 8-bits where bad scrolling isn't an issue, perhaps a few adored CPC shooters are offputting immediately, and something like Mission Genocide (5/10 on CPCGR) or Killer Cobra (6/10) stand out as good 'uns despite their simplicity (which is offset by them being budget too)?

Conversely most homebrew games are technically wonderful, yet (unless they're unofficial remakes) they're not designed by professionals (or playtested, the way at least commercial-era coin-ops were), so perhaps some will understandably lack in terms of originality, difficulty curve fairness, variety or sheer character? It's fair to encourage gifted homebrew coders, but if two games get 8/10, one from 2020 and one from 1990, should we expect the newer game to be at least as good overall, especially if it costs money?

CPC Game Reviews is ultimately just a single review from a single player, mostly Nich who's clearly played a LOT of CPC games, some good some not. The effort he's put into this website means his views are a good starting point, but they're not a gospel quality rating above all else. Nich complains about games being Spectrum ports a few times, but he did give 9/10 to Pac-Mania and Lotus which could be criticised as such.
 
i think this has drifted from the original 'games which are objectively poor, but you enjoyed despite it' mindset I think the OP was aiming for. Inevitably lots of Amsoft among that - you never forget your first. Daley Thompson's Decathlon certainly wasn't considered a poor game in its day, likewise Supertest (2/10 on CPCGR) which I think has some endearing character to it (the botched ski-jump landings always made me chuckle).

[cwpab]

The page with the Roland game reviews has some interesting scores too. Nich doesn't seem too happy with most Roland games. 

Roland in the Caves / La pulga: 2
Roland in Time: 3
Roland in Space: 3

Finishing Roland in Space, which I suffered as a kid, with emulator save states was pretty fun for me. The game would be so much better with infinite lives.

Strangely enough, I didn't find any magazine reviews for this game in CPC Power... Too soon for French magazines?

In any case, I think a 5 (as "Ahoy!" has) is a better score for those 3 titles. But if we accept Roland in Space is "bad", then it would be one I can't help but "love".

[OneVision]

I've played both Wonderboy and The New Zealand story A LOT at the time because it was the only way for me to play those arcade conversions.
Both were very flawed technically but did an honest job recreating the original game play.
For example TNZS had everything from the arcade : level design, flying with balloons, enemies, boss etc ... but at 7 FPS !!

[Gryzor]

Yeah, TNZS was flawed (basically: small playing window) but in my eyes it had all the charm of the original...

[dodogildo]

but in my eyes it had all the charm of the original...

Yeah, at least it had in-game music. Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if it hadn't. 

[Shaun M. Neary]

The original International Karate was such a poor Speccy port


 why couldn't we have had a version like it?

I think that's called 'answering your own question'

Good jumping-off point for a general ponderance though - the technical quality of commercial CPC games was variable, to put it politely. A lot of wonderfully designed, innovative games which were popular on other systems got sluggish, ugly, awkward CPC conversions. I get the feeling that some people are more forgiving of this than others. If you're used to other 8-bits where bad scrolling isn't an issue, perhaps a few adored CPC shooters are offputting immediately, and something like Mission Genocide (5/10 on CPCGR) or Killer Cobra (6/10) stand out as good 'uns despite their simplicity (which is offset by them being budget too)?

Conversely most homebrew games are technically wonderful, yet (unless they're unofficial remakes) they're not designed by professionals (or playtested, the way at least commercial-era coin-ops were), so perhaps some will understandably lack in terms of originality, difficulty curve fairness, variety or sheer character? It's fair to encourage gifted homebrew coders, but if two games get 8/10, one from 2020 and one from 1990, should we expect the newer game to be at least as good overall, especially if it costs money?

CPC Game Reviews is ultimately just a single review from a single player, mostly Nich who's clearly played a LOT of CPC games, some good some not. The effort he's put into this website means his views are a good starting point, but they're not a gospel quality rating above all else. Nich complains about games being Spectrum ports a few times, but he did give 9/10 to Pac-Mania and Lotus which could be criticised as such.
 
i think this has drifted from the original 'games which are objectively poor, but you enjoyed despite it' mindset I think the OP was aiming for. Inevitably lots of Amsoft among that - you never forget your first. Daley Thompson's Decathlon certainly wasn't considered a poor game in its day, likewise Supertest (2/10 on CPCGR) which I think has some endearing character to it (the botched ski-jump landings always made me chuckle).

Sorry only seeing this now.

I actually think Mission Genocide deserved higher than a 5/10 and Killer Gorilla deserving a lot less (and that was a full price release as well!)

The biggest problem I think, especially the likes of arcade and movie conversions often got rushed out in time for the Christmas rush, and as much praise The New Zealand Story is getting on this thread, I'm going to have to be the buzz killington and say that to me, it looks, feels and plays like a game that had a lot of potential but got rushed out due to deadline. The same guys did Platoon the year before I think, and that was awesome (once you memorise the maps). Modern coders don't have those deadlines and can take as long as they like. 

Heh I'll agree some of Nich's viewpoints on some of the reviews can be skewed at best. But in fairness, and to his credit, he's not the only one. I've seem ratings in AA and ACU over the years that really left my head scratching. The ratings they gave Time Machine and Hard Drivin in 1990, I'm still dying to understand where the likes of Trenton Webb was coming from. As for PacMania, I got that at Christmas 88 and was underwhelmed to say the least. It had no speed and as a result the gameplay was sucked out of it.

Out of the Amsoft bundle, The Galactic Plague gets such a death and I don't understand why at all. I quite enjoyed it then and still do today. It was also one of the quickest loading out of the bunch which was a bonus. 

[cwpab]

I just checked Time Machine and Hard Drivin in CPC Power, and it seems French journalists also gave those games 8/10 scores.

[Herman]

Regarding Nich's cpcgamereviews website, I love the concise reviews there, always to the point. My favorite place to go for pure retro pleasure all things Amstrad.

The reviewed game ratings are mostly in line with my assessment. As always with reviews, subjective influences play a role for both the reviewer and the reader, which is why it is never possible to please everyone.

In any case, thank you for your excellent CPC work over the decades.

[mahlemiut]

I'm sure I spent far too much time playing LA Swat back in the day, than would otherwise be healthy.

[cwpab]

Nich has re-reviewed IK+. It now has a 6 instead of a 5.