CPCWiki forum

In my case, I would say this one:


Because it's really cute and I love the little sound effects, but I remember getting angry with this as a kid (Electro Freddy in case you're a newbie). Only finished it as an adult decades later!

So I will go with this one:


Amsgolf for the ones starting in the CPC world. Both have 1/10 on CPC Game Reviews (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/browse/), but I believe they deserve a bit better. Especially the golf game.

I can't help but "love" this one because of the relaxing map screen and ugly-but-cute graphics. It's hard to forget this experience when you're 8 years and 6 months old. I didn't even know what "club" meant! (For a Spanish kid, this meant "bar" or "association".)

The dedicated "green" screen is admitedly terrible (with a side view of the golfer) and you need a fucking ruler to measure your shot, but I sill feel "love" for Amsgolf.

What bad CPC games do you "love"?

I couldn't find anything below 3 that I like. 

But from the 3s and 4s on CPC Game Review I played A LOT: Daily Thompsons Decathlon, Ghostbusters and Moon Buggy. 

For all the hate it gets, I do enjoy having a play through No Exit from time to time, I think it's the cool backgrounds and doesn't require a lot of thought.

(https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/images/screenshots/n/no_exit.png)

My other is Qabbalah, not understanding what to do gave this game a real sense of mystery, and this is the one I went back to as an adult to conquer once and for all!  I'm pretty sure I was the first person to ever see the ending outside of the programmers  :laugh:

(https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/images/screenshots/q/qabbalah.png)

Some of the "4" scores seem surprising... Moon Buggy is kind of a good version of a classic (Moon Patrol). And the Ghostbusters game, well... I didn't know it was that  bad. About No Exit, they gave it an 80% at the time! And now it has a 4.

I suspect many of these scores need a bit more "context" from the reviewer. Of course, some CPC games are actually bad, as in really bad. But some others seem more like a simple concept than a failed one.

If you play a game for some minutes and have fun, only to get tired of it because it's repetitive... Is it really bad? That is the question.

Quote from: cwpab on 18:25, 21 March 25Some of the "4" scores seem surprising... Moon Buggy is kind of a good version of a classic (Moon Patrol). And the Ghostbusters game, well... I didn't know it was that  bad. About No Exit, they gave it an 80% at the time! And now it has a 4.

I suspect many of these scores need a bit more "context" from the reviewer. Of course, some CPC games are actually bad, as in really bad. But some others seem more like a simple concept than a failed one.

If you play a game for some minutes and have fun, only to get tired of it because it's repetitive... Is it really bad? That is the question.

Some games just age badly, they looked impressive at the time and maybe that suckered reviewers in (or the publisher advertised heavily in the magazine, which often factored into "higher" review scores).

And yeah, sometimes modern players will downgrade the scores on simple games but such is life.

As for No Exit specifically, I think 4/10 is unbelievably generous. A fighting game in which you lose health just by attacking your opponent! What were they thinking!

I can't wait for the opposite topic  Great CPC games you can't help but "hate"      ;D

Quote from: norecess464 on 18:51, 21 March 25I can't wait for the opposite topic  Great CPC games you can't help but "hate"      ;D

Prehistorik 2

I think some scores in CPC Games Reviews are biased to the owner taste, he overrates beat' em ups, text adventures (which seem to be his favourite genres) and homebrew in general. And underrate everything that looks remotely like an Spectrum port. But it's just that, subjective reviews, it's not a democracy, just the creator and collaborators freedom to estimate the scores they want.

I love and play many games that are not even in the list like Admiral Graf Spee or have directly 0 score like The Galactic Plague, because they were the first games I played on my 464. There are others with bad scores like Badlands (3) or Oh Mummy (4) which I don't think are so bad. Some others have average scores like Catch 23 (6) or the "original" R-Type (6) which I think deserve a lot higher score.

The truth is that our favourite games usually are for sentimental reasons, more than game quality.

I love Rock Hopper, a pretty simple BASIC game just because it was one of my first type-ins from a magazine.

I love Big Trouble In Little China (5), Back to the Future (6), Howard the Duck (2) and Ghostbusters (3), which I know are objectively bad, but they were one of my first XMas presents for the CPC in a pack with Aliens (the good one in the pack).

I love Zorro (6) and Army Moves (5) because they were the first original games I borrowed from a friend.

Apart from that, perfection is boring. I mean, Chase HQ is a great game but if I want a quality driving game I play in my PS5. Part of the fun in the CPC is to deal with these dull, awful, jerky, eye-stabbing games.

of all the ones rated 2 and under I quite enjoyed playing these ones:

Leviathan - 2
Roland in the Caves - 2
Xanagrams - 2

anything under 3 and that number goes up a surprising amount:

Android One - 3
Daley Thompson's Decathlon - 3
Dizzy Panic - 3
Ghostbusters - 3
Roland in Space - 3
Roland in Time - 3

Quote from: abalore on 19:22, 21 March 25I think some scores in CPC Games Reviews are biased to the owner taste, he overrates beat' em ups, text adventures (which seem to be his favourite genres)

You couldn't be more wrong. :laugh:

Quoteand homebrew in general.

I admit that I am a bit biased when it comes to rating modern releases. One reason is that the overall quality of modern releases is higher than it was in the 80s and early 90s, but another is that I feel bad giving such games a low rating when the authors spend many hours creating them as a labour of love, in many cases without any financial reward. On the other hand, there is one guest reviewer in particular who gave really high marks (usually 10/10) to almost every modern CPC release. ::)

Yeaaaaah, I'm gonna pipe up here.

As an occasional contributing reviewer to CPCGR, and someone who have has met, drank with, and overall partied with Nich in general, we have butted heads on many occasions when it comes to Amstrad (and other platform) games. And @abalore, I've all the respect in the world for you, but you also have to remember other people review games on that site other than Nich. Being honest, I'd trust Nich's reviews as opposed to Chris Lennard, who has given ratings that has left me scratching my head.

But you need to understand, CPCGR is an independent website. Anyone reviewing games on that website is doing it voluntarily and it's simply their opinion, which they're free to give when Nich gives them a platform to do so. Likewise, you're also free to question it. Also I'm definitely more a beat em up guy. I've been to several retro parties and he's more an adventure / platform gamer from what I've witnessed through these eyes. :)

And for the record, I was the one who glowingly reviewied Alcon 2020... wait... wasn't that one of yours? ;)

It's opinion at the end of the day. But accusations of bias? Nah... not standing for that one. :)

Keep doing what you're doing @Nich and I hope to contribute more soon once I get my legal shit sorted out. :)

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 21:15, 21 March 25It's opinion at the end of the day. But accusations of bias? Nah... not standing for that one. :)

What's wrong with bias? Everyone has a bias. What you are not standing for? I don't get you.

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 21:15, 21 March 25And for the record, I was the one who glowingly reviewied Alcon 2020... wait... wasn't that one of yours? ;)

If you think you rated the game higher than it deserves feel free to lower it. That's not a problem to me.

Oof, yeah I struggle to enjoy Prehistorik 2 as well.

If Roland in Space/Time are "bad", then those are bad games I like. I liked Roland in the Caves too, although it really needed more levels.

And yeah we all have bias. I know Xyphoe doesn't care much for isometric games; me I thought they were great. And I see one of my favourite CPC games, Radzone, only gets 5/10. on CPCGR.

Oh I know a really bad game I liked. I'd probably struggle with it now because it's so slow, but I had fun trying to figure out Streaker as a kid. It's like a Magic Knight game, but very weird. I also have a real fondness for Technician Ted which most people probably don't feel.

Quote from: abalore on 21:43, 21 March 25

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 21:15, 21 March 25It's opinion at the end of the day. But accusations of bias? Nah... not standing for that one. :)

What's wrong with bias? Everyone has a bias. What you are not standing for? I don't get you.

Heh... I guess I don't get you either as being biased was what you argued for initially?

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 21:15, 21 March 25If you think you rated the game higher than it deserves feel free to lower it. That's not a problem to me.

Angry much? :laugh:

I don't change my ratings unless it's under extreme circumstances. Alcon2020 is a great conversion. My only gripe was initially the power ups were icons instead if words and my criticism was taken under advisement and it
was updated.

Another reason why you have high respect from me.

What I struggle to enjoy is almost all Plus games. They are in gray zone between too advanced for a CPC game but too bad for a hardware accelerated console.

With the exception of Burnin Rubber and some modern releases I remember to get bored very quickly with almost any title I tried.

Great "charming bad games" suggestions, guys. That Admiral Graf Spee seems really cute, it gives me Amsgolf vibes. If Amsoccer (a "bad" game that nobody "loves") is there, Admiral deserves its own review.


I'm tempted to send a review of another bad game that's hard to "love", Amstrad Jumper, to the site, as it's missing. Perhaps my score would be an 1 instead of 0 simply for the surreal sprites of the enemies: a boat? An evil tea pot?

Since the topic is being discussed, I also think that homebrew games on CPC Game Reviews are overrated compared to commercial games, but I imagine so as not to offend those who have developed, nor to discourage them. IMHO, it is not a good choice. I also don't think it's serious to say that Abalore is wrong, since you did indeed overrate his game*. On the contrary, it confirms that. So I'll take this opportunity to offer my opinion:

* The Alcon 2020 version (released the same year) had a lot of room for improvement; the shots were difficult to read and the scrolling was unpleasant. Furthermore, the difficulty was too uneven. It was generally good, but I wouldn't have given it more than 7 out of 10 at the time. (You gave it 9)

The final release from 2022 is a clear improvement. Everything is very fluid and readable, the weapons are well balanced, but the difficulty on easy mode sadly too high for most players, which can spoil the fun to play it. I'd give it a score of 8 or 9 out of 10, depending on your skill with this type of games. Your review hasn't changed since 2020, but now, the score is consistent. ;)

Back to the topic, 3D Fight was scored 3/10, while it deserves a lot more. I really love this game! :-*

As a developer and being mentioned repeatedly, I can say I don't fell either encouraged by good ratings or offended by bad ratings in personal websites or individual comments. I have many other ways to get feedback about the game, like winning the "Game of the year" and "Best technical achievement" of the Sugar awards the year of the release, because that involves the average opinion of the community, not of a single person.

Regarding the improved quality of modern developments, I can say that we also have tools for development that programmers of the time only could have dream about: emulators with integrated debuggers, advanced graphics editors, free game engines and infinite knowledge on Internet. Not to say we have unlimited time to make our creations instead of being constrained by commercial deadlines.

For me, the merit is bigger in an average game of the 80s than in a spectacular looking modern game. Or in the best case the same merit.

As a last word: rating a game with a single number from 0 to 10 is meaningless IMO, because there are a lot of aspects involved that you can't encode in such low amount of information.

QuoteOof, yeah I struggle to enjoy Prehistorik 2 as well.

The press coverage for this game was incredible (at least in France, thanks to the review in Amstrad Cent Pour Cent #48). As a teenager back then, that article made me dream, and when I finally got my hands on the game, I wasn't disappointed at all. I never thought it was possible to push the machine's technical limits even further! It was the first time I had seen such scrolling in a game -- sure, the gameplay felt slow, but not to the point where I would "hate" it. On top of that, the game was visually stunning, and the music was incredibly catchy. To me, it felt close to a console gaming experience.
Nowadays..... nostalgia completely clouds my judgment, so please forgive me!  8)
But I still launch it from times to times, while there are many other games I did not launch in years.

On the other hand, Xyphoes Fantasy also received great press coverage, but... despite all the great words, I tried it and hated it right from the start. Too slow, not fun, endless loading times, boring gameplay, and awkward character animations while walking. That was a true disappointment to me.

I think rating systems are useful if we see them as an indicator -- at least to determine whether a game is worth checking out or not.

But yeah, they're still just opinions, and some people might find a single feature absolutely amazing and give it a 9/10 just because of that! :)

Quote from: abalore on 08:40, 22 March 25What I struggle to enjoy is almost all Plus games. They are in gray zone between too advanced for a CPC game but too bad for a hardware accelerated console.

With the exception of Burnin Rubber and some modern releases I remember to get bored very quickly with almost any title I tried.

Out of all the launch titles, Pang was the only one that truly stood out, in my opinion.

I like Plotting on GX4000.

@norecess464 One more message and you will fill the maximum of 512 posts!

Quote from: Egg Master on 13:46, 22 March 25Since the topic is being discussed, I also think that homebrew games on CPC Game Reviews are overrated compared to commercial games, but I imagine so as not to offend those who have developed, nor to discourage them. IMHO, it is not a good choice. I also don't think it's serious to say that Abalore is wrong, since you did indeed overrate his game*. On the contrary, it confirms that. So I'll take this opportunity to offer my opinion:

* The Alcon 2020 version (released the same year) had a lot of room for improvement; the shots were difficult to read and the scrolling was unpleasant. Furthermore, the difficulty was too uneven. It was generally good, but I wouldn't have given it more than 7 out of 10 at the time. (You gave it 9)

The final release from 2022 is a clear improvement. Everything is very fluid and readable, the weapons are well balanced, but the difficulty on easy mode sadly too high for most players, which can spoil the fun to play it. I'd give it a score of 8 or 9 out of 10, depending on your skill with this type of games. Your review hasn't changed since 2020, but now, the score is consistent. ;)

Back to the topic, 3D Fight was scored 3/10, while it deserves a lot more. I really love this game! :-*

Because I knew there was better scrolling in the works and improvements were being worked on. But even the 2020 version was damn good for its time especially when you compare it to the 87 version. I gave it a 9 at the time based on my own personal enjoyment playing the CPR on my GX4000.

I enjoyed it so much that I threw my name into the second batch of pre orders along with a play2cpc.

After all, it saved me the time of re-reviewing it! ;)

Quote from: abalore on 08:40, 22 March 25What I struggle to enjoy is almost all Plus games. They are in gray zone between too advanced for a CPC game but too bad for a hardware accelerated console.

With the exception of Burnin Rubber and some modern releases I remember to get bored very quickly with almost any title I tried.

I really dislike Burnin Rubber. Trying to turn on it is such a struggle. It's a great demo to display the machines capability but I found it sluggish as hell to play.

Robocop 2 had potential but it was just way too difficult and I'm a guy who likes challenging games but that game almost made me take my C4CPC and thrown it at the wall!

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.

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?

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.

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. ;)

Quote from: abalore on 15:59, 24 March 25This 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.

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 16:53, 24 March 25

Quote from: abalore on 15:59, 24 March 25This 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%

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 03:55, 24 March 25Talking 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.

Quote from: abalore on 17:31, 24 March 25

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 16:53, 24 March 25

Quote from: abalore on 15:59, 24 March 25This 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?

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 00:35, 25 March 25

Quote from: abalore on 17:31, 24 March 25

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 16:53, 24 March 25

Quote from: abalore on 15:59, 24 March 25This 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?

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 (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/s/1/#saboteur) (IMHO it's a 7 for a Playstation game, but a 10 for the CPC!) gave Gremlims 2 a 9 (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/g/10/#gremlins_2_the_new_batch)... Dear "John Beckett", we don't hate you, but please get your tastes checked by a doctor!  ;D

Quote from: abalore on 16:01, 25 March 25

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 00:35, 25 March 25

Quote from: abalore on 17:31, 24 March 25

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 16:53, 24 March 25

Quote from: abalore on 15:59, 24 March 25This 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. 

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 16:53, 24 March 25

Quote from: abalore on 15:59, 24 March 25A 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 (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/review/997/), but I also gave the same rating to IK+ (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/review/967/) - 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.

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. 

Quote from: Nich on 22:22, 25 March 25

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 16:53, 24 March 25

Quote from: abalore on 15:59, 24 March 25A 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 (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/review/997/), but I also gave the same rating to IK+ (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/review/967/) - 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?

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 07:40, 26 March 25Today, 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.

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 07:40, 26 March 25Amstrad 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.

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 07:40, 26 March 25Many 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".

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 10:45, 26 March 25The 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).

The page with the Roland game reviews (https://www.cpcgamereviews.com/r/11/) has some interesting scores too. Nich doesn't seem too happy with most Roland games.  ;D

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".

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 !!

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

Quote from: Gryzor on 10:55, 01 April 25but 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.  :laugh:

Quote from: MartinJSUK on 17:27, 27 March 25

Quote from: Shaun M. Neary on 10:45, 26 March 25The 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. 

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

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.

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

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