|
Post by backgroundnoise on Jul 7, 2017 12:18:17 GMT -5
Looking at footage of this game, I have to ask: was it necessary to have large-scale combat alongside standard top down combat? Seems somewhat redundant. Also, horse riding section alongside other mini games. Clearly, this is the Hillsfar spiritual successor that I have been clamoring for. Didn't Seanbaby do a pretty hilarious takedown of this game once? Link to the relevant article stated in the post. It's humorous, but not very comprehensive.
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Jul 7, 2017 12:19:00 GMT -5
I would think the problem isn't that the author likes the game, so much as that the article does not even acknowledge that there are people that dislike it. Even a little throwaway sentence about "reviews at the time were unkind". Because, I'd argue, HG101 isn't about whether a game is good, but about whether a game is notable.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jul 7, 2017 13:15:31 GMT -5
I would think the problem isn't that the author likes the game, so much as that the article does not even acknowledge that there are people that dislike it. Even a little throwaway sentence about "reviews at the time were unkind". Because, I'd argue, HG101 isn't about whether a game is good, but about whether a game is notable. "Public perception" and "critical reception" are not standards of the reviews here though. There are lots of games here that are widely considered mediocre by the larger populace, including critics at the time, that we don't pay attention to, so this particular game being singled out is very, very weird to me. Like, I was never even aware of its reputation as an objectively "bad" game. Googling around, most of the bad reviews came from comedy websites more concerned with how the game looks, the rest were split between "okay but not great" and "decent", so I really don't see this as an outlier. It is an ambitious one that tried a bunch of different things, uncommon for movie licensed games, even if it didn't execute them individually all that well. That's more of a hallmark of a "notable" game than anything.
|
|
|
Post by backgroundnoise on Jul 7, 2017 13:16:47 GMT -5
On the subject of reviews, the general reception wasn't that unkind. The most positive score is from Nintendo Power, being the advert magazine that it was, Issue 26, page 8. The EGM(1991) aggregate doesn't fully represent all four reviews, so here is a transcription, for the sake of convenience: "I saw the movie and the best thing in it was the king and he only occupied thirty seconds of film. This game left me with an equally unsatisfied feeling, not because there was anything wrong with what I was supposed to be doing, after a while I just realized it wasn't much fun." (Steve) (4) "Not much of an action game, but it isn't supposed to be. As a quest game it will make you think and more games should be made this way. Graphics are OK but not exceptional. The quest is about the right length and rather straighforward. No real tough spots to stump the player." (Ed) (7) "The game is pretty cool in that it tries to take a variety of game play concepts and blend with the Robin Hood theme. It's more of an RPG than an action game. The fighting scenes are very slow and have lots of flicker. I didn't see the movie, but as a game Robin Hood isn't great." (Martin) (4) "Cool! If you liked the movie, you'll love this adventure! Taken directly from the movie template, Robin Hood makes you feel like you are actually playing the movie by following the action scene by scene! In others[sic] words, it's a tremendous translation to the home entertainment screen." (Sushi-X) (8)
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jul 7, 2017 13:31:24 GMT -5
Thanks for that, I saw the aggregate on Mobygames wasn't all that great but those individual scores give a better idea on the broad variety of opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 14:57:56 GMT -5
On the subject of reviews, the general reception wasn't that unkind. The most positive score is from Nintendo Power, being the advert magazine that it was, Issue 26, page 8. It's been forever, but I seem to remember them calling out this game in particular in issue 50. Something about how they had it on the cover only for the game's release to be delayed, and that when it finally arrived, it wasn't very good. Could be wrong, but my (hazy) memory seems to recall thinking that it was noteworthy that NP would actually say something wasn't fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by backgroundnoise on Jul 7, 2017 15:36:11 GMT -5
On the subject of reviews, the general reception wasn't that unkind. The most positive score is from Nintendo Power, being the advert magazine that it was, Issue 26, page 8. It's been forever, but I seem to remember them calling out this game in particular in issue 50. Something about how they had it on the cover only for the game's release to be delayed, and that when it finally arrived, it wasn't very good. Could be wrong, but my (hazy) memory seems to recall thinking that it was noteworthy that NP would actually say something wasn't fantastic. The only thing I could find is a caption on the 5 year anniversary retrospective article: "Worst Timing: Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves--This highly anticipated game appeared six months after our cover review due to a lengthy debugging period."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 15:39:01 GMT -5
Not unheard of for me to misremember something. Thanks for checking!
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jul 7, 2017 15:40:17 GMT -5
I find it more interesting to hear from people who like games that aren't widely liked, or have gotten a bad rap. Comedy articles and videos (AVGN, Seanbaby) are just that and shouldn't be taken as a reference, anyhow. If anything, that article about the CD-i Zeldas argued that two out of three aren't bad, but aren't quite good either - something I've seen plenty other people say, wherehas the most mocking or hateful didn't play the damn thing and just laughed at the cutscenes. The common attitude is to pile up on anything that has been deemed garbage by any collection of random strangers, but the right attitude is to play it and decide for yourself. Also, I remember people criticizing the Godhand article recently for slamming the bad and mediocre reviews it got, so I'm genuinely not sure what people think would be the right approach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 15:52:06 GMT -5
Ideally, people should just say what they really think. Criticism of criticism is equally valid, though.
|
|
|
Post by ReyVGM on Jul 7, 2017 21:40:38 GMT -5
So people should like stuff they don't like instead? Robin Hood is pretty infamous for being a bad licensed game. You can talk about the negatives of a game in a non mean-spirited way. Take a look at this old and new description for Hokuto no Ken on TCRF: Mean-spirited description:"This critically panned Famicom game based on the popular manga sold over 450,000 copies in Japan, proving that Famicom-owning kids back in the 1980s were just as gullible as their NES-playing counterparts when it came to buying licensed trash." Objective description:"Hokuto no Ken for the Famicom is the first of several games based on Buronson and Tetsuo Hara's post-apocalyptic manga. It's a ''Spartan X''-style beat-'em-up, very similar to the unrelated Black Belt (SMS) released around the time, but nowhere near as well-regarded (in fact, it's generally considered an infamous ''kusoge''). However, it came out at the peek of the manga's popularity in Japan, as well during the beginning of the Famicom boom, allowing this sub-par game to sell over a million copies."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 21:46:02 GMT -5
You can also not get offended when someone says they don't like something with conviction. Life would be pretty boring if everyone talked like Canadians all the time!
|
|
|
Post by ReyVGM on Jul 7, 2017 23:18:40 GMT -5
I didn't get offended. And Canadians are great people. Them not being assholes doesn't mean they are boring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 23:21:08 GMT -5
I'm talking entirely in jest here, man.
|
|
|
Post by Malev on Jul 8, 2017 1:58:56 GMT -5
It's been forever, but I seem to remember them calling out this game in particular in issue 50. Something about how they had it on the cover only for the game's release to be delayed, and that when it finally arrived, it wasn't very good. Could be wrong, but my (hazy) memory seems to recall thinking that it was noteworthy that NP would actually say something wasn't fantastic. They adknowledge the long debugging post cover review, but not the quality of the final product. It was the second time they mentioned the delay at that point, since they had to answer letters from readers where the game was.
|
|