Prince of Persia Classic Review

By Richard Leadbetter Published 13 June, 2007

Fit for a king.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Chalk me up as one Xbox Live Arcade gamer that was quickly losing faith in the whole concept. Deluged with sub-par, decades-old arcade shovelware, it was getting difficult to greet any classic re-release with anything than the full 800 points' worth of contempt and despair. But perhaps things are changing. Prince of Persia Classic is a 51MB-sized slice of redemption - a comprehensive remake that honours Jordan Mechner's brilliant concept by injecting its timeless appeal into a modern-looking, highly entertaining game that's well worth its diminutive price tag.

Yes, it's had a graphical facelift, and yes, it looks and runs very nicely. But let's be honest - by all rights, visual splendour (or basic graphical competence at the very least) should be a given in the HD age of Xenos and RSX; it's in Gameloft's retooling of the gameplay where Prince of Persia Classic should be tested.

Central to this game's appeal has always been the Olympic-level athleticism of the main character and his ultra-smooth, realistic movement. With Prince of Persia Classic, the fundamental basics are unchanged in terms of the tile-based gameplay that dictates how far the Prince can jump, when he can grab on to ledges and how he'll fall to his doom. But the additions here make all the difference, with several new moves that genuinely look cool and make the action seem much faster and more fluid than the original game. Think of the rooftop chase in 007 reboot Casino Royale, based on the principles of free running, where every environmental challenge has a graceful, athletic solution. That's clearly where Gameloft wanted to take the main character, and it works a treat.

'Prince of Persia Classic' Screenshot 1

It's just a shame there are no downloadable replays, as I get the sense that watching a master run through the levels using all the moves available would look pretty sensational.

Rival Swords

The combat has also been substantially upgraded with a deceptively simple two-button swordplay system. The X button sees you attacking while A defends, but context is king here, as the effect of your button press is dependent on the state of combat itself. Perhaps the Prince will dodge an incoming strike rather than parry it, opening up a new attack possibility. Perhaps two killing blows will collide, resulting in a clash of blades. The key here is in how you to respond to every eventuality - how you read the state of play and what your next move will be. There is obviously a certain logic to it, but your instincts master the basics first and that's key to the appeal.

It's all about turning off and letting your reactions take over - the cut and thrust of Prince of Persia's combat is akin to a really satisfying extended rally in Virtua Tennis, and my only complaint is that sooner or later your own skill level eclipses the abilities of even the strongest CPU opponents. When I completed this game, I really wanted a stronger difficulty level, such was my enjoyment of the fighting and my lust for conquering more skilled opponents. But there are no such challengers, just new game modes to tackle. On the plus side, I could now cut down most of the earlier levels' opponents with a prequel Jedi's contemptuous ease - useful indeed for Prince of Persia's Time Attack and Survival modes.

The Sands of (Real) Time

'Prince of Persia Classic' Screenshot 2

These new game variations form the backbone of the game's longevity once you've completed it. Time Attack is well in keeping with the game's roots. Played out in real time, the 1989 original gave you one hour to rescue the princess before she was executed by the evil Grand Vizier Jaffar. This limitation is all-but gone in general gameplay, but it's the cornerstone of Time Attack - cliché it may be, but it is a race against the clock and the game thoughtfully gives you a ghost of your best performance to compete against should you so wish. My only criticism here is the inability to share ghosts, or download the best performances per level from Live.

Survival mode is where it's at in terms of ultra-difficulty - completing all levels without a single death requires a superhuman level of dedication. Just as it was 18 years ago, Prince of Persia is still a game where traps mean instant death and one miniscule error can blow an hour's worth of hard work. Even in normal mode, this utter ruthlessness is one aspect of the original that doesn't sit well with present-day gaming sensibilities. The addition of mid-level checkpoints helps, but sudden death is still a remarkably brutal, frustration-inducing element.

'Prince of Persia Classic' Screenshot 1

Longevity is boosted still further with the Achievements; getting your full 200 points' worth is going to take some effort. In general, they are well-paced - most of them being awarded for completing key segments of game action, such as finding your sword, beating specific opponents or completing harder puzzles. Top score is reserved for finding every potion and beating Survival Mode, but I for one liked being able to accrue decent levels of gamerscore without having to indulge in stupidly obtuse gaming chores.

It's all good news. Games like Prince of Persia and the PlayStation Store's forthcoming Super Stardust HD are strong evidence that classic gaming is finally getting the respect it deserves. Gameloft is to be congratulated and rewarded with millions of our Microsoft points for a remake that beautifully celebrates a genuine gaming legend. Add it to your Live Arcade collection alongside Jetpac Refuelled, Geometry Wars and Pac-Man Championship Edition as the most essential examples of 'retro evolved'.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (64) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Peew971 #1 5 years ago

    Wow, a review at 7:00. Lost sleep?
    Reads like a 8 or 9. Surprising score really.
    Edited by 1 at 13/06/07 @ 08:05

  • Beano #2 5 years ago

    Automatic article activation FTW :)

  • Donny #3 5 years ago

    Not as good as Halo then?

  • bunglebonce #4 5 years ago

    I don't know what to believe.

  • The_Inquisitor #5 5 years ago

    7 seems fair for a what it is, I'll definitely be getting it.

  • NegativeZero #6 5 years ago

    The description of the swordplay here doesn't sound that different to what I recall of the original. You could block some attacks with your own attack and the like there too. I'm sure there's a little more to it now, but to be fair the original PoP was pretty good in this aspect already.

    Personally I'm really looking forward to this. I haven't played PoP since my Master System died, and that was over ten years ago.

  • Pepeman #7 5 years ago

    teehee...if i blur my vision juuuust a little bit i can imagine that the score is 8!

    aah..time for meds...

  • Fozzie_bear #8 5 years ago

    Not as good as Halo then?

    Better than Halo 2 though.

  • woodnotes #9 5 years ago

    Not as good as Cloning Clyde? :s

  • skuzzbag #10 5 years ago

    Seems more like a 7.5 to me.

  • Peew971 #11 5 years ago

    At least, we should be told the reasons for that 7. Maybe the game's too short for an 8.

  • Uncle_Fishboy #12 5 years ago

    So how much is it?

  • Eighthours #13 5 years ago

    Only a 7? With an 8 for the first two Pacman games? (Sorry,you're never going to live those down...)

  • bushwod #14 5 years ago

    why are the first and last screen grab the same?

    Whhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!

  • Arganoid #15 5 years ago

    Sounds like a 7.000001 to me!!!! (satire)

  • Flightrisker #16 5 years ago

    Tycho says:

    This has been simmering on some tertiary heat source for awhile, and it may be time to serve it. When a classic game is re-released for digital delivery, by what criteria are they being reviewed?

    The reality, of course, is that in order to maintain healthy relationships with publishers you need to review their product - great, and small. This no-doubt includes "channels" like Xbox Live Arcade, which must be where these workaday, worthless reviews come from. In some cases there's simply no need (beyond the business realities alluded to earlier) for young men to toil in describing them, because these games are so elemental: they have two buttons, and one mode of movement. What is it? It is Xevious. End of review. The word even sounds like an adjective.

    These games are cheap, cheap, cheap, but ironically something that costs ten dollars and has a Goddamned demo is scrutinized more in terms of value. Is it Xevious? How much more Xevious should it have been to rise to the ten dollar level? Could, perhaps, the enemies enter the screen more Xeviously? The game appears to lose points in graphics and sound simply for being old.

    It isn't impossible to discuss fundamental games in a way that is interesting and valuable. But I don't know if plugging ancient games into the Hardcore Review Machine and outputting your stupid little number improves the world.

  • Uncle_Fishboy #17 5 years ago

    Like your fancy writing style flightrisker, I'm with you. I suspect though, in real life, you are a bell end.

  • LeD #18 5 years ago

    Uncle_Fishboy: who's the bell end here? That's quoted from Penny Arcade.

  • Flightrisker #19 5 years ago

    @ uncle_fishboy

    I was quoting from Tycho from PA. My own writing style is almost unreadable. Like the scrawlings of a drunk 8 year old.

    So sadly I cannot take responsibilty for that quote, although I do agree with his sentiments.

    This does however absolve me from your "bell end" reference which I'm sure Tycho will gladly add to this collection online insults.

  • defdaz #20 5 years ago

    I'm a bit confuzzled. Are scores weighted at all? DiRT got 8/10 and this gets 7/10, just one point less. If there isn't any weighting then a reeaaally old game, made for a fraction of the cost of a modern AAA title, is almost as good. *boggle*

  • asphaltcowboy #21 5 years ago

    Sounds great... will probably pick this up, but I'm too busy playing Forza!

  • Flightrisker #22 5 years ago

    Surely these should be maked out of 5 like they marked those kids' game a while back?

  • SpacemanX #23 5 years ago

    @defdaz

    Hopefully you are trolling... The other option would be bad news for you.

  • Peew971 #24 5 years ago

    Maybe EG should consider having different ratings for XBLA/PSN/VC games as they're in their own category. Maybe 0-10 for full-price games and A-E for arcade games. That would leave (still some but) less whining about scores and we could at last get rid of the "better/worse than..." quotes.

  • defdaz #25 5 years ago

    @SpacemanX

    Heh. :) I take it you're a PoP fan then. A different rating system as suggested might work, I like them. I'm not really trolling, just trying to make a point.

  • speedofthepuma #26 5 years ago

    @defdaz

    I think he was pointing out your mis-interpretation of a scoring system rather than defending PoP

  • morriss #27 5 years ago

    "Not as good as Halo then?

    Better than Halo 2 though"


    HAlo 2 got a 9. ;)

  • defdaz #28 5 years ago

    Hang on, that's what I'm asking about. :)

  • Uncle_Fishboy #29 5 years ago

    @ Flightrisker & LeD

    I see what you mean. Hadn't noticed that. My apologies. I jsut enjoy calling people bell ends I guess!

  • asphaltcowboy #30 5 years ago

    @defdaz

    Do you honestly believe that EG's scoring system puts an 8/10 full price game exactly equivalent to an 8/10 game that costs £6?

  • rudedudejude #31 5 years ago

    Pacman 8/10 LOL

    For all of the 27 seconds of playing it before I get bored and switch to one of these lower scoring 'modern games'.

  • Roland_on_the_Ropes #32 5 years ago

    Sounds good - may get it once the MS fucks pick up my 360 and fix it. They were supposed to arrive on Monday! Have had the "ring of fire" for a couple of weeks now.

  • Overlush #33 5 years ago

    I dunno: people get all cynical about the next-gen being a polished version of the last-gen but all mooshy when the next-gen is a polished version of the last-last-last-last-gen.

    Bloody gamers...

  • MGG #34 5 years ago

    800 points = £6? At last, someone has put a real price on them!

    I would have purchased quite a bit of stuff from XBLA already if they hadn't used these stupid "points" - I have no clue (and why doesnt it tell you this in XBLA itself?!?) what the points cost.

    Total and utter nonsense.

  • asphaltcowboy #35 5 years ago

    MGG: actually I was slightly off, 800 points is £6.80, if you're buying points at the MS price - obviously you can buy 2100pt cards from retailers that will be slightly less... And although the points abstraction can make things confusing, it's possibly better than having to have loads of separate stores for every currency and not having things all go up at the same time as everybody else (like someone else's online store...)

  • The-Bodybuilder #36 5 years ago

    7/10? That's a suprise. The review reads like a 9.
    All semantics anyways. Sounds like a great game.

  • defdaz #37 5 years ago

    @asphaltcowboy

    No, not really so yeah I guess I am trolling. I think the point I'm badly making is that it could be easy to judge that PoP is better than it is if you just think 'hmmm, 7/10, must be good!' when you are used to reading reviews of full price AAA games.

  • IAmBatman #38 5 years ago

    > At last, someone has put a real price on them

    You get told the real price of points when you buy them. You just have to do a bit of maths to work out how much things have cost you.

    > why doesnt it tell you this in XBLA itself?!?

    Because XBLA doesn't know how much you paid for your points (price per point varies depending on where you buy them, and whether you got a bargain or not), so it would be lying to you, and then you'd come and post on the internet about how stupid it was.

    > stupid "points"

    They really are points, so there's no need for the quotes there.

  • defdaz #39 5 years ago

    ... and points mean prizes! Yay!

  • GrandpaUlrira #40 5 years ago

    That was reading like at least an 8.

  • TedMoseby #41 5 years ago

    Hmm. It looks nice. But having got to the third level (and it's amazing how much I remember of the layout of the levels - it's all flooding back to me), the controls are really quite bad.

    They may get better over time as I get used to it, but the analogue stick just doesn't give the same precision/feel that the keyboard gave all those years ago; especially in this game, where time is literally of the essence. I don't have time to be faffing around sorting out that he actually needs to turn one way or the other. I just need to be able to fling him off the high jumps like he used to and get on with it. Even the mad, skidding turns that he used to make have been toned down, and to my mind they don't look as fluid as the original.

    I'd give it a 6. It's a solid effort. If only I could map movement to the D-pad perhaps I'd get on with moving him around better. At the moment, I'm fighting the controls, and in this game, they need to be second nature. Hopefully I'll get better with time.

    And on a final note, I just wish they'd kept the princess's swishing animated hair that she had as she turned around in the intro of the original.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #42 5 years ago

    I like this much better than the original. I could never be arsed with the finicky movement in PoP, but it feels much smoother and more free now. Again, though, I wish they weren't going the 800-point route for what must have been a pretty minor amount of work - copy the nice graphics from another version, tweak the controls a bit and you're done. No physical costs, no stock, no manufacturing, no whopping great retailer margin, and a game that's 20 years old - I'm not sure why this justifies twice the price of Time Pilot, Rush'n Attack or (most obviously) Jetpac Refuelled.

  • Azazel #43 5 years ago

    I don't know what to believe.

    Neither do I!

    I'd give it a 17/20.

  • Hughes. #44 5 years ago

    My favourite version of this was on the Game Gear, it was a beaut, unfortunately it was a Sega Master System port, and they hadn't enlarged the font for the password screen, so if the password had an "O" a "D" or a "Q" in it you couldn't tell them apart. Still loved it though. This looks fantastic, if it shows up on PSN (Can't think why it wouldn't) I'll be getting it.

  • Xerx3s #45 5 years ago

    Better than Halo 2 though.

    Depends on who you believe.

  • Walshicus #46 5 years ago

    Can you guys just settle on a way of scoring these games please? I mean you rag on Shadowrun's score for being too expensive, but say it's a great game... and then you say this is a great game and cheap, but offers less absolute value or whatever. Either price should be taken into account or not, but don't just appear to use it on a whim.

  • defdaz #47 5 years ago

    ... not to mention (according to IGN.com) that it only takes a couple of hours to complete.

  • Peew971 #48 5 years ago

    Talking about XBLA, why didn't you review Soltrio Solitaire?

  • constihill #49 5 years ago

    And now I'm waiting [probably fruitlessly] for someone to rejig Another World or [preferably] Flashback for XBLA. Ah, Flashback, how I did adore thee.
    http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashback_%...

  • cyber_nicco #50 5 years ago

    The "7" is obviously a typo - it's meant to be a "9".

    Okay, move along...

  • thegouldfish #51 5 years ago

    Another world has already been redone for the PC, with updated visuals that is more or less perfect.
    Flash back has been recently ported to XP, NDS, PSP, etc.

    As with most games from the Amiga age they used digital controls and normally joysticks, so a pad will never really feel right even more so seeing that the quality of D-Pads have been decreasing in recent years.

    I wonder if the Competition Pro Joystick (USB) work with the xbox360 then you would get a real stick to play these classics with.

  • bloodflowers #52 5 years ago

    Hori EX Turbo pad has an excellent d-pad, but this game doesn't support it.

    Anyway - nice remake, I appreciate things like this just as much as old arcade ports - which is a lot.

  • smelly #53 5 years ago

    "... not to mention (according to IGN.com) that it only takes a couple of hours to complete."

    Sigh. No it doesnt.

    If you want to COMPLETE it PROPERLY you'll need to do it within the 1 hour time limit.

    But unless you're cheating/using a walkthrough or just god.. there's no WAY you'll do it in an hour first go.

    If on your first attempt you do it in less than 10, then i'd say you're probably lying.
    Edited by 1 at 13/06/07 @ 18:37

  • smelly #54 5 years ago

    "Can you guys just settle on a way of scoring these games please?"

    Look, surely all that matters to anyone who isnt a retarded geek is whether or not the game is good or not and worth your money. Looking at the review and score together - yes it is.

    Gees.. and they say games make kids dumb. You dont see people on movie forums arguing that one film got 4/5 but another got 3.5/5 do you?

  • Der_tolle_Emil #55 5 years ago

    Gees.. and they say games make kids dumb. You dont see people on movie forums arguing that one film got 4/5 but another got 3.5/5 do you?

    Maybe not but I have seen hordes of people killing each other over StarTrek vs. Star Wars. So where's the difference? Arguing about 7 or 8 seems to me a bit more sane than arguing about 0/10 vs 10/10

    I agree with Peew971: At least, we should be told the reasons for that 7. Maybe the game's too short for an 8.

    I don't care if it's a 7 or a 10 if the text does not suffer from artistically induced lack of solid criticism. If the game is too short or has some flaws that seriously hurt the game than I can judge by myself whether this game is for me or not. But if the review only mentions positive things without anything bad but it still gets a "not very, very good" rating then I am missing something and the only thing left is to compare it with other games. Reading the review the only real problem with the game is sudden deaths - then again this is something that simply has to be in the game because otherwise it would not be the original Prince of Persia. And I'd bet quite a lot of money that if those deaths would be gone the forgivingness of a health bar would have to face equal criticism.

    The team behind the game has put great effort to get this game technically up to date and add modes to give the game long lasting appeal; And it certainly plays well. Yet something is missing that seems to justify a 7. But what is it? There is no possibility to share ghosts. I agree, that would have been nice. But what else? What should the game do better to get the same score like many other Arcade titles that got a better score? Yes, 7 or 8 is not a huge difference but the review really praises the game yet the score seems to contradict. I don't really have a problem with the score I just have a problem putting everything into context. Take the Catan review. The game also received a 7 and it adds up very well reading the review with justified and fair criticism of a lacking singleplayer mode and sometimes bad controls which to be honest is a very important part. Catan is a great game and the review lists both the positive and negative things about it and this is exactly where this review is a bit lacking. Maybe there are no bad things to say about Prince of Persia and if there indeed were no flaws in this game, then why does it 'only' get a 7?

    I know I sound like I bitch about the score but I really am not. I just want to state that I can understand why people moan about the inconsistency in the reviews.
    Edited by 1 at 13/06/07 @ 19:07

  • smelly #56 5 years ago

    Sometimes reading this forum reminds me of comic book guy from the simpsons.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #57 5 years ago

    Is that good or bad?

  • davisorle #58 5 years ago

    one hour game... No 2 hours game!. omg you guys. Its like you wont get to play Portal cause its actual gameplay is less than 4 hours. ( When you have finished the game around 3-4 times and you get perfect at it that is. )

    No more noob comments so i wont be checking back in this topic tbh.

  • smelly #59 5 years ago

    okay.. im going to resort to shouting.

    IT IS NOT A ONE HOUR GAME!! THERE IS NO WAY YOU'LL FINISH IT IN ONE HOUR (well not on yer first go through anyhows).

    Expect it to take at LEAST 5 to 10 hours.. Even if you DO manage to do it in the hour that wont take into account the level restarts when you die.

  • Monkey-Wizard-Ken #60 5 years ago

    PLEASE STOP!

  • quantumsheep #61 5 years ago

    I've been stuck on level 2 (2!!!) for the last hour.

    I am officially old and crap at games =(

  • Veldaban #62 5 years ago

    It's a pity that the game doesn't have the Sands of Time to help with the sudden deaths really... Apart from that I'm having a blast with the game too!

  • qwerty123 #63 5 years ago

    Maybe the Live Arcade / Retro games should be scored out of 5 in stead of 10. They do that on GC.

    4/5 no complaints

    edit: Like Flightrisker said (only just read the 1st page)
    Edited by 1 at 14/06/07 @ 21:32

  • smelly #64 5 years ago

    >4/5 no complaints

    wtf? Are you retarded?

    4 out of 5 is 8 out of 10 - simple maths.

    so therefor it makes f-all difference.