Overrated games

[AMSDOS]

WOW!! WWF Wrestlemania must be the most overrated CPC game of the lot, well I don't know Robocop 2 coped a hammering (after the cartridges thing failed) long after it was initially given a high rating on it's initial release - in AA66 I think, not really into Wrestling games, though it's interesting. In AA93 The Re-Released WWF Wrestlemania (at a Budget Price of £3.99) got a review rating of 43% from Tim Norris sent it to the cleaners!    Linda Baker on the other hand gave it 90% when originally reviewed as a Full-price game (only a mere £12.99 on Tape and £15.99 on Disk  ) in AA77, Page 1 and Page 2 of that review. I also noticed that Linda's review somewhat stands out alone (Poor Linda!  ), as others have expressed their disgust on this game too! Interesting how something can easily be the standard of Mastergame could also get 43%!!   

Ever buy a Mastergame based on that review only to be disappointed, one other time I brought Powerdrift cause it was rewarded Mastergame in AA51 (91%), perhaps the issue where everyone wanted to see Batman The Movie get the Mastergame since it wasn't far behind recieving 90%, but it was only a Rave!    I enjoyed Powerdrift for what it offers, though was surprised when AA gave it 85% as a Re-Release to Budget, guess a lot of racing games had come since then, interesting to note that Powerdrift came in the issue after Contential Circus, which is the Racing game everyone consider the best! 

Getting back to AA77 I've got a couple of games from that Issue, the other Mastergame was Paperboy 2 and G-LOC. Paperboy 2 - 91% and G-LOC 68%, I must have played G-LOC heaps more than Paperboy 2. It's perhaps not the best air shooting simulator around, Afterburner I'm guessing sets the standard for those games, though I quite enjoyed G-LOC, nothing fancy, just straighfoward shooting and flying/dodging walls.

[EgoTrip]

I have a theory for some of the high scores. I am not saying this is the case, but maybe some reviewers have been bribed to give a good review. Some people lack integrity and will do anything for money. There are a lot of shady characters in this (and every other) industry.


Another reason could just be that the reviewer was rushing the review to meet a deadline, or just has really poor taste.

[MacDeath]

Not a theory : a fact !

BTW, the second review may also occur a few time after original release, and time prooved the game wasn't that good after all (or even better games were released in between, and standards evolved...)

[AMSDOS]

Not a theory : a fact !

BTW, the second review may also occur a few time after original release, and time prooved the game wasn't that good after all (or even better games were released in between, and standards evolved...)

That's why I'm kind of going back though some of those games AA criticised to see what I might like to play. Could really depend on what the game is. AA Gave away "Spaghetti Western" on their cover tape with Issue 115 which was a game they gave an Overall rating of 37% in AA60! I've played it a bit and think it's a bit better than that. ACU also reviewed that game and gave it 88%, personally I would say it was that good, cause the graphics are straightforward (even though they work) and I've got though a bit of that game, but the later levels are really tough, even more so given the controls throughout the game are awkward and it's almost as if Zeppelin didn't want anyone to complete this game based on that! 

Another game which I've seen get the works from AA is Xybots. Originally it got a reasonible 76% in AA47 which I thought was reasonible. On re-release (budget) it gets 39% I think and couldn't take the review very seriously cause it was merely a one liner suggesting "This pile of Dog Droppings never should of seen the light of day."    And AA loves to compare certain games with other games in the same field. Seems a pity that they would take off serious marks for it, that's usually the advantage of having a Scaling review system from 1 to 10.

[MacDeath]

Despite an awnfull port, Xybots was actually decent because it is a co-op 2 player game.

Also for once the graphics are better than the speccy of C64 conterpart.
More coloured despite having 1bpp graphics elements...


I was disapointed when I bought it, yet I played it a lot because the concept of the game is good and it doesn't play too slowly.

[Gryzor]

It may not be so much a matter of direct reviewer bribery as it is of corporate bullying. It's a well known fact, discussed many times, that companies would pull advertising if you didn't have the correct views about their programs...

[AMSDOS]

Interesting, I think the Lowest scoring game I saw have it's own Advertising Page was "New Zealand Story" which was reviewed in AA50 and got 65% I actually thought it was a pretty good game, though the Graphics do let it down somewhat, otherwise I enjoyed it! The Ad for it was on the back of AA47 and I'm not sure there was any which followed.

[Gryzor]

Loved it to bits. 65% is way too low... I still melt whenever I see it.

[Xyphoe]

Most overrated game in AA ever was FIRE & FORGET 2 ... pretty much the first release on the console, so in their enthusiasm gave it a whopping 94%!!

Man, it's lucky to scrape into the 70%-er range!! Especially when you had to pay £25 for it on cart!

Again, AA reavaluated it in the console round up in the issue with skull/Stryker In The Crypts Of Trogan cover (AA81-ish) saying 'we must have been mad!'


To be fair, out of all the other mags AA seemed to have a lot more integrity than others ... sometimes their reviews were bizarre (I never liked James Leach and Trenton Webb reviewing games - Adam Peters and Simon Forrester were much better who followed) but I don't think they bowed to pressure from the big companies ... most Ocean games got decent reviews because they were decent games, on the other hand Domark and US Gold got badly slated and rightly so.

[ssg]

I'd seen computer mags (mostly C64 or Amiga) in Turkey which gave games scores like 150% (I think Shadow of the Beast was one of those games).