Harsh Ratings

Fizza · Post by **Fizza** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:13 am

What games do you think had too harsh ratings? Every time I see the review for Sabre Wulf I can't understand why it got something like 47%, I think there was a definite bias against this game because it was a year old and originated on the Spectrum, especially when Robin Of The Wood got a Sizzler in the same issue and that's pretty much the same game with some prettier graphics, although pretty much as exciting as Sabre Wulf. I'm not saying that it should have gotten Sizzler or anything, but I would say that a 75%+ mark would have been the starting point for this one..

CraigGrannell · Post by **CraigGrannell** » Fri May 13, 2005 11:19 am

In the early issues, some of the fairly good arcade conversions were slated as being dated (Pac-Man got a very low mark, for instance). Sabre Wulf, however, was a pretty average game at the time, and the C64 version arrived a long, long time after the Speccy version's release, hence the low mark.

Post by **Iain** » Fri May 13, 2005 5:37 pm

Fizza wrote:What games do you think had too harsh ratings?

/runs in and shouts Delta and runs away again very quickly!!!

LeeT · Post by **LeeT** » Fri May 13, 2005 5:42 pm

I must admit that I quite liked Sabre Wulf at the time - Played it for longer than some of the higher-rated games!

I also liked Underwurlde whcih got a bit of a mixed review (From memory Gary Penn didn't like it?).

I think you have a point about the reviewers being against anything speccy originated - Though in the case of Brian Bloodaxe, they were right!

Fizza · Post by **Fizza** » Fri May 13, 2005 10:10 pm

Yeah, Brian Bloodaxe was poor I'll agree there, not a good game on the Speccy either IRRC. I think Boulderdash II was another example, although it begrudgingly got a sizzler, if you didn't have the first one then it had to be as an essential purchase as the first one, if not more because of the extra levels...

Professor Brian Strain · Fri May 13, 2005 10:18 pm

Sabre Wulf got hyped in Crash because they didn't have time to review it properly. Methinks they tried to redress the balance by being harsh to the Commie version... just my opinion. And seeing as it came out a year later, it's fair to call it dated...

gravy · Post by **gravy** » Fri May 13, 2005 11:17 pm

Iain wrote:
Fizza wrote:What games do you think had too harsh ratings?
/runs in and shouts Delta and runs away again very quickly!!!

Bah! Beat me to it

Lloyd Mangram · Post by **Lloyd Mangram** » Sat May 14, 2005 8:30 am

gravy wrote:
Iain wrote:
Fizza wrote:What games do you think had too harsh ratings?
/runs in and shouts Delta and runs away again very quickly!!!
Bah! Beat me to it

Blame the other Gaz.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Sat May 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Heh... I wonder if Delta really is the most debated Zzap review of all time? To me the score was just about spot on...

Professor Brian Strain · Sat May 14, 2005 12:46 pm

Delta was rated too low, Nemesis was rated too high, in my opinion... (both should have been mid-eighties, Delta probably a percent or two higher)

CraigGrannell · Post by **CraigGrannell** » Sat May 14, 2005 1:09 pm

Horses for courses. I agree totally with Gary Penn—I much more enjoyed the mix-e-load (and Hubbard's in-game score) than the game itself, which I found tedious and frustrating. It was more like a memory test than a shoot 'em up. Frankly, I still believe Zzap! over-rated the game, although I know I'm in a minority there!

As for Nemesis, I didn't think much of that one either, and would have knocked the Overall score down by 15 per cent or so.

Thinking about it, I don't think I agree with most of the scores Zzap! ever gave Thalamus games:

The Apex games, although good fun, were all flawed in some way and didn't, in my opinion, deserve such high ratings. Creatures would have just about Sizzled in my book, but Retrograde soon became boring, while Creatures 2 was a serious pain in the backside to play. Of the other Gold Medal games, only Armalyte really has a strong claim: Hawkeye was over-rated, while the fact Nobby the Aardvark got 96% is something of a joke.

Some of the Sizzlers were pretty mind-boggling, too. Sanxion: 93%? There must have been "happy water" in Zzap! towers that day. Similarly, Winter Camp's high rating was surprising (as was the 80% dished out to the truly appalling Summer Camp, which would have scored about 50% in my book).

Still, there were some odd under-ratings, too. While Heat Seeker's 75% was perhaps due to the game's strangeness, how Hunter's Moon failed to get a Gold Medal is beyond me, as it's one of the best shoot 'em ups ever created. Similarly, Snare should have at least Sizzled, and its 88% seems very low—perhaps this was down to the iffy graphics.

FX23 · Post by **FX23** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:05 pm

at the end of the day, sabre wulf was a brilliant game, but a brilliant spectrum game.

it was a straight spectrum port.

brian_dead · Post by **brian_dead** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:19 pm

what rating did dick tracy get? that game licked balls.

CraigGrannell · Post by **CraigGrannell** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:26 pm

brian_dead wrote:what rating did dick tracy get? that game licked balls.

According to this site's very own Zzap! Bible Mr. Tracy amassed a whopping 11%.

brian_dead · Post by **brian_dead** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:46 pm

11% thats spot on!

The Def Guide to Zzap!64

Harsh Ratings

Harsh Ratings

Re: Harsh Ratings

Re: Harsh Ratings

Re: Harsh Ratings