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.