Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1989 Classic Arcade Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 15 March, 2007

Turtley awful.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Nostalgia can be a harsh mistress. Reeling out that sentiment in a review for yet another Live Arcade disappointment brings with it a certain Groundhog Day vibe, but never is it more true than when talking about arcade games from the cultural dead zone known as the Late Eighties.

With increasingly powerful home consoles eating into their market share, the cabinet makers supplying the world's arcades inevitably chose the Darkside path of least resistance and served up titles boasting attention-grabbing visuals and sound still beyond the reach of the fledgling SEGA Genesis, but often with precious little in the way of gameplay. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a typical example of this all-sizzle, no-steak era of arcade gaming. Served up on a next-gen platter, the result is singularly unappetising.

Sewer stench

'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1989 Classic Arcade' Screenshot 1

Boss fights follow no set pattern or strategy, so just keep jumping and pounding away.

This honestly came as a surprise to me since, like many others, I had fond memories of the game. Admittedly, this is probably because it was one of the few working cabinets in the lobby of the Stalybridge Palace Theatre, my then-local cinema and an establishment later used as a location for The League of Gentlemen, a fact which should give you some idea of how inappropriate the name really was. Seeing screenshots from the game certainly took me back to a time when such thrills were the best a boy could aspire to but, viewed with adult eyes, its clear my taste had a lot of growing up to do.

Populated by garish and stiff sprites, it's fair to say that the once-amazing visuals have lost their appeal over the years. Unlike the very early arcade games, which still hold a certain minimalist grace, Turtles looks horrible - a muddled splurge of colours and noisy backgrounds cut, pasted and pixelated wholesale from the cartoon, devoid of any real artistry. Animation is rudimentary, while the scrolling is jerky.

Offering a mere five short levels of repetitive scrolling beat-'em-up, and a move set best described as anorexic, the fact that its sole function was to Hoover pocket money from children's hands is made horribly apparent once the Insert Coin mechanic is removed and replaced with infinite credits in single-player. If it weren't for the ludicrously unfair difficulty slowing you down, the whole game would be over in five minutes. As it is, it lasts for about twenty.

Cowadunga

'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1989 Classic Arcade' Screenshot 2

The game is not generous with points - anything over 1000 is considered a high score.

Old games were hard - we all know that, and it's even part of their charm. Those with retro tastes have developed a deep masochistic streak, learning to take pleasure from being savagely beaten. Infamously brutal titles such as Ghost n' Goblins and Defender made life impossibly hard for gamers yet remain well-loved because, beneath the constant death, the core gameplay was fun and improved performance was always tantalisingly within reach.

Turtles has none of that tough love. Once you needed a stack of pound coins, now patience and a cool temper are all that's needed to see it through. Success doesn't require you to get better at the game, just that you keep hitting continue. As you trudge through wave after wave of identical foes, the game changes not one iota from the first level to the last, and nor do the skills required to survive that far.

You can jump, and you can hit things. That's about it as far as instructions go. No high, low, strong or weak attacks. No blocking. The turtles themselves have no distinguishing features or abilities beyond their weapons and masks so there's no reason to favour one character over another. During a four-player game, it's easy to lose track of your turtle in amongst the morass of purple jumpsuits and green shells. Sadly, not being able to work out where you are doesn't even affect the gameplay all that much.

Shelling out

'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1989 Classic Arcade' Screenshot 3

The screenshot that launched a thousand erotic fan fiction websites.

It's not just that the game repeatedly puts you in positions where health loss or death are unavoidable - you can hit the guy to your left, but only at the expense of the guy to your right shooting you in the back - it's that there's no joy in the process, no sense of discovery or excitement. You just keep plugging away through sheer stubbornness, gritting your teeth at each new combination of environmental death-traps and unavoidable attacks. As there's no risk of losing your bus fare home to the slotty maw of the arcade machine, the flatlining gameplay just dangles there, rendered pointless when taken out of context. The closest the game comes to penalising you is in the co-op mode, where you have limited credits. Run out, and you're unable to add any more. It's revealing that having to take an early bath from the game can actually feel like a reward.

The game doesn't even have the good grace to offer up a well thought out array of Achievements for your trouble. Most require near-superhuman feats such as navigating a stage without losing health or defeating a boss without being hit by their weapon, and a game designed solely to kill the player as frequently as possible just isn't suited for such tasks. On the other hand, there are completely pointless Achievements, such as the one that gives you zero gamerpoints for falling into a manhole five times. Is it a joke? Or an admission that in a game so lacking in depth or variety there simply weren't enough things to do to make up the required twelve Achievement Awards?

Turtles is about as shallow as gaming gets, with even less to offer than Renegade, a game already three years old by the time this hit the arcade. It's no surprise that not long after its release Capcom released the similar yet vastly superior Final Fight, forcing Konami to try that little bit harder with its later Simpsons and X-Men side-scrollers. Already outclassed by its peers in 1989, the shortcomings of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are laid horribly bare in 2007. Within an hour of downloading the thing I'd completed it twice - once on my own, once in multiplayer co-op - and see no reason to ever go back to it again. Even at 400 points, that's pretty shoddy value.

3 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (170) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • kissthestick #1 5 years ago

    so.....when are MS gonna increase the mb limit?

  • MadMirko #2 5 years ago

    Ouch, XBLA has seen better.

  • McBradders #3 5 years ago

    Wow, how to completely miss the point in one easy lesson.

  • ZuluHero #4 5 years ago

    i used to love the amiga version. But things were alot more acceptable back then. Oh, and licences used to carry more weight as well.

  • Aretak #5 5 years ago

    "so.....when are MS gonna increase the mb limit?"

    Already done.

    Also, this gets 3/10, yet Pac-man gets 8/10. Madness.

  • Tejstar #6 5 years ago

    Ouch!

  • Caimbeul #7 5 years ago

    I think you will find it is not meant to be a deep, involving and innovative game. its not far from 20yrs old and was meant simply to be a 10p/30p a credit button bashing side scrolling bet-em-up based on the TMN(H)T license which was hugely popular at the time.

    Stop getting so high and mighty over something as small as this, christ its only 400 points!

    Everyone was raving about and looking forward to this game a few days back whats happend?

  • Xerx3s #8 5 years ago

    WTF?! This is a 9 at least imo! I absolutely love. Has EG gone insane? There are absolutely shit games that get an 8 or higher and this gets a 3?

    EG in page hit scoring shocker.

  • Caimbeul #9 5 years ago

    @Aretak - I agree, I can only stand acouple of levels of PM before I get bored sensless.

  • morriss #10 5 years ago

    Yeah, I thought it was fucking terrible, only topped by Rally-X

  • Steroyd #11 5 years ago

    Ouch at the Achievements, this achievements thing has got to be reviewed or something specifically for small games like this.

    And surely the Zero gamerpoints for falling down manhole was a little typo?

  • kangarootoo #12 5 years ago

    I hate "so, better than" comments... but

    Am I to believe this is worse than Tapper by some considerable margin?

    (I've not played this btw)

  • TheMoonRat #13 5 years ago

    Errr, i thought each character _Did_ have their own unique attack; just hold jump and attack down together. I'm sure raph does a roll then stab, while leonardo jumps and swipes.

  • kissthestick #14 5 years ago

    "Already done. "

    150mb isnt enough :(

  • Keso #15 5 years ago

    I'd rather pay £3.40 for this, then £6.80 for half of Worms (a game I can get for the PC for about 99p from the local game shop, complete with all wepons etc).

    Roll on PS3. Tekken DR, 1080p complete with exclusive extras for £6.99. MS take note: thats value.

    Lets hope MS drops its prices soon.

  • space_ace #16 5 years ago

    party like it's 89

  • jonsaan #17 5 years ago

    Old arcade games will always hold a special value to certain people. Whatever the game, somone out there loves it. I think it's nice that MS give you the chance to replay your old favorites. I love Scramble and most people think it's shit. I don't care.

  • DutchDemons #18 5 years ago

    wow...all of a sudden EG is getting harsh?

    how out of character!

    it's a short game, yes. As it was back in the days...and it's just as cute as then. It now has achievements added and online 4 player co-op. HOw that can LOWER a score to a 3/10 is beyond me.

    it is at least a 6/10 and personally i give it a 7/10. just for nostalgia reasons and the fact it's cheap as hell.

    I never got the EG reviewers, they seem to dish out random and bizarre scores and very often disagree with the mainstream, onlyy to disagree, which is childish and unprofessional.

  • Psi #19 5 years ago

    wow this is the next gen :D

    was crap when i was younger, blinkin coin swallower no fun

  • Pinchy #20 5 years ago

    Turtles is about as shallow as gaming gets, with even less to offer than Renegade

    If you've got something bad to say about renegade matey I will be forced to flying kick you off the edge of a train platform.
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 11:57

  • rudedudejude #21 5 years ago

    This is an Awesome Game.

    EG! Sort it out!

    what's next, you're gonna review the Simpsons arcade game and give it 2?

  • Tomster #22 5 years ago

    I think Eurogamer is going a bit EDGE on us...

  • jonsaan #23 5 years ago

    'I never got the EG reviewers, they seem to dish out random and bizarre scores and very often disagree with the mainstream, onlyy to disagree, which is childish and unprofessional.'

    Well, I have noticed that they all like different types of games, which is fair enough really.

    Had Kristan reviewed this, I suspect it may have scored a bit higher.

  • Uncle_Fishboy #24 5 years ago

    I'm with you on the renegade thing Pinchy, you grab him from behind and then he can knee me in the nuts, oh hang on...

  • Brogan #25 5 years ago

    This game comfirmed what i was already thinking. as i get older i get shitter at games.

    3/10 not fair at all

  • dog2_99 #26 5 years ago

    well i am still gonna get it i loved this when i was younger...gees i hope they bring out the simpsons game as well, that was another fav! and for £3.40 i am not expecting the world

    As someone mentioned before £6.99 for tekken on ps3 is great (MS take note indeed!), its the only game i play currently my my blu-ray player, sorry i mean ps3 ;0)

  • Artemis_Matsas #27 5 years ago

    Pinchy + Uncle_Fishboy

    +1

  • Xerx3s #28 5 years ago

    EG rated absolute pieces of tripe (and then I mean horrible crap) such as Paperboy, Root Beer Tapper, New Rally-X, Defender, Dig Dug, Scramble, Pac-Man (just from the back of me head, there are more) higher than this marble.

    This is brilliant fun for only 400 points.

    /shakes fist at the reviewer
    /throws a sheep at the reviewer

  • sajtion #29 5 years ago

    okay i only played the trial and was dissapointed. they could have upgraded the graphics and fighting system. i think they should have made it to acceptable standards this gereration, i mean i don't expect it to be the same all crappy original arcades. before developers realise they need to start making quality arcades not just cheap ass ports of old games we could start spending money on them

  • Huntcjna #30 5 years ago

    This is one of the worse reviews I have seen on this site for a long time.

    Woeful to be honest.

  • #31 5 years ago

    3/10? Lol made my day that did. Must download the demo and see what all the fuss is about :D

  • Xerx3s #32 5 years ago

    /forms an angry lynch mob

    Graaaawwwrr!

  • dog2_99 #33 5 years ago

    **searching for garden folk to join the angry mob**

  • MrAtheist #34 5 years ago

    Great review, although 3/10 is a bit generous.

  • #35 5 years ago

    I was thoroughly entertained by that review :D

    Doesn't matter if I agree or not, as tbh I don't really care for Turtles so don't have any nostalgic memories to be sullied.

  • Waldo #36 5 years ago

    This game has aged poorly, and it wasn't that good to start with. Get over it.

  • Huntcjna #37 5 years ago

    'I don't really care for Turtles so don't have any nostalgic memories to be sullied.'

    /adds Mapster to 'dead to me' list

  • stepneg #38 5 years ago

    I look at these 400 points games as similar to the old £1.99 cheapo's you used to get on the C64 or speccy from Mastertronic etc.., a lot of them were complete shite but it didn't matter to much because they didn't cost a lot. Most of the cheapy XBLA titles like turtles have online coop, leaderboard's and achievements etc.. Even if you hate the game I think 3\10 is a bit harsh given how much it costs and what you get for the money.

  • Arganoid #39 5 years ago

    Price should be factored into the score to a certain extent - e.g. if it's a blatant rip-off or surprisingly good value for money, but I don't think a game should be marked up just for being cheap. If a game isn't much good then I'm not going to want to play it even if it's free.

    As for Turtles, I played it occasionally at the arcades when it was released. It was ok but nothing special.

  • repairmanjack #40 5 years ago

    I had money on this scoring an eight, particularly after Worms got a six.

    I tried it last night and it is, indeed, a bag of shite. I just don't understand people paying money to play stuff like this any more.

  • #41 5 years ago

    TBH I have stopped buying these games after spending 2 mins on Doom, then 1 min on SF2. Playing those made me realise that while they are classics, I've already played them to death long ago.

    Much more interested in stuff like the Worms update and the Lemmings update on the PS3 store, along with stuff like Flow. Tekken DR is the sort of game I want to see more of being available to download for a tenner!

  • Muzakjunkie #42 5 years ago

    Did have a massive rant to post here, but I really cant be bothered. I agree with the majority of the posts in here though.

  • DanWhitehead #43 5 years ago

    A co-op mode is only of value if you can actually co-operate with other players. This just lets four people bludgeon their way through the same levels at the same time - there's no interaction between the characters or players.

    As for 400 points earning it some sort of leeway, that really makes no sense. A great game for 400 points is a bargain. A poor game for the same price is still a poor game. I don't like spending money on poor games, and really don't understand people who do.

    Sticking up for such a shortlived and mindless grind just because it brings back warm fuzzy memories is like someone in 2027 defending the Little Britain game because the nob gags made them laugh when they were ten.

  • mechamonkey #44 5 years ago

    I want 6 player Xmen :)


    and a new 4 player captain commando !
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 12:32

  • tonynibbles #45 5 years ago

    Aretak: Also, this gets 3/10, yet Pac-man gets 8/10. Madness.

    Erm, that's because Turtles is shit and Pac Man is an absolute classic.

  • Xerx3s #46 5 years ago

    MMU: Get over it people.. it was a BAD GAME that you only liked because it was four player and brainless.

    That's the point, it's not a BAD game for 400 points. It's a bloody good game that offers good value for your money.

    Anyway, this joke review was fun as long as it lasted. When are we going to get the real review?

  • Lukus #47 5 years ago

    I'm not sure why so many people are surprised this has got a poor score. What did you expect? The gameplay is hardly existent.
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 12:37

  • andromeda #48 5 years ago

    wierd. My now ex-girlfriend, made me boot this up on my mame cabinet the other night. I stood behind her watching as she sang heroes in a halfshell and kept dying every 10 secs. I got dumped the next day.
    i hate the frakkin game.
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 12:39

  • MrAtheist #49 5 years ago

    They could give TMNT away for free, wouldnt stop it being a shite game.

    Why the need for pity points? "Well its complete crap but its only £3, 8/10!"

  • Mashum #50 5 years ago

    Spot on review - played the demo and this game blows a dog's cock.

  • DanWhitehead #51 5 years ago

    "It's a bloody good game that offers good value for your money."

    How?

    How is it a "bloody good game"? It's five short levels of identical button mashing combat, against the same enemies using the same moves every step of the way.

    And what value does it offer? A game that can be completed in less than half an hour, with little incentive to go back and do it again.

    Sorry, I absolutely do not understand why people are so attached to this game. It's precisely the sort of game that everyone moans about - a paint-by-numbers hack job made to claw money from a popular kids product. Just because it's twenty years old and cheap doesn't make that acceptable.

  • rider2006 #52 5 years ago

    I don't agree with the Eurogamer review. I played this game when it first came out in the arcade, it's a classic. If you were are big fan of Turtles when you were a kid, you will not be disappointed. I give it a 8 for retro gaming.

  • Aretak #53 5 years ago

    "Erm, that's because Turtles is shit and Pac Man is an absolute classic."

    Pac-man is shit. Stop living in a nostalgia-fueled fantasy land.

  • rider2006 #54 5 years ago

    "Erm, that's because Turtles is shit and Pac Man is an absolute classic."

    "Pac-man is shit. Stop living in a nostalgia-fueled fantasy land."


    To me they are both classics.

  • Keso #55 5 years ago

    "How is it a "bloody good game"? It's five short levels of identical button mashing combat, against the same enemies using the same moves every step of the way. "

    Are we talking about Turtles or Gears of War now? :p

  • scowat #56 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 16:41:01 08-02-2012

  • Liggur #57 5 years ago

    Just skip this retro trash and get on and release Catan to live, that what i'm holding back my MS points for.

  • Mr_Whacker #58 5 years ago

    What about the 'special attack' mentioned here? It also claims that Don has a different attack. Is that true here on 360?[link url=http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox360/file/938488/223 05
    ]http://ww w.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox360/...[/link]

    The score is your choice, Mr Whitehead but EG's scores are not consistent. All of your criticisms of this game can be levelled at Pac-Man (erm, one maze and NO buttons to mash) and all the other Arcade games that Kristan gave a score of 7 to. It really seems to me that Arcade game reviews are either:
    7/10 - I used to love this game or
    3/10 this game always did suck

    Ta very much but I really don't need a professional review for that. What value do you think this review brings us, esp when there is a trial available? You should just stick to full price reviews.

    EDIT - And this is a daft thing to say 'And what value does it offer? A game that can be completed in less than half an hour, with little incentive to go back and do it again. ' So because Pac-Man loops 1 maze round for ever its better value is it?
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 13:00

  • MrFlintBlackman #59 5 years ago

    EG in bullshit review shocker!

  • dudefella #60 5 years ago

    A THREE?! What is wrong with you?

  • Kiigan #61 5 years ago

    This might be the silliest thing I've ever read on Eurogamer.

  • dudefella #62 5 years ago

    Honestly, half the point of LIVE Arcade is to give people an easy way to replay old classics they liked as a kid or in the arcade. Way to miss the damn point. Sidescrolling beat em ups from 1990 SHALLOW? SURELY NOT! Multiplayer is the name of the game.

  • Xerx3s #63 5 years ago

    How is it a "bloody good game"? It's five short levels of identical button mashing combat, against the same enemies using the same moves every step of the way.

    And what value does it offer? A game that can be completed in less than half an hour, with little incentive to go back and do it again.

    Sorry, I absolutely do not understand why people are so attached to this game. It's precisely the sort of game that everyone moans about - a paint-by-numbers hack job made to claw money from a popular kids product. Just because it's twenty years old and cheap doesn't make that acceptable.

    It's a bloody good game compared to some of the utter shite xbla games that got an 8. The whole score and review system lacks any form of balance. If this would get a 3 and all the other tripe would get a 3 as well, I could understand it. But Some of the most horrific ports ever made got blazing scores.

    I'm not attached to this game. This holds no retro value for me as I never played t before. I played it now and think that it's absolutely a great game.

  • #64 5 years ago

    What's all this crap about EG not scoring consistently? Different reviewers have different opinions and will score games differently, of course they will.

    You want EG to force reviewers to give this an 8 because pac man got a bloody 8? Wise up!

  • citizenHUNTER #65 5 years ago

    Getting zero points for being crap at the game made me think, surely the acheivements thing should work negatively as well... if you don't improve in a game after playing it for weeks then you're clearly rubbish ergo minus 10 points or something.. would make life a lot more tense for those that really cared, and for those that didn't it doesn't matter. I think we need something to make games take on a bit more urgency sometimes. Like for example part of the charm of the arcade original is lost when it costs you nothing to keep playing away at it til completion, but if you lost a gamer point for every death, and gained two for every level completed or something... actually makes it seem more worthy than just gaining points for anything you acheive while losing none if you play really badly. Just an idea...

  • kangarootoo #66 5 years ago

    @DanWhitehead

    I do tend to agree actually, that being a retro classic does not make a game great for the rest of time. My mention of Tapper earlier was really more of a "they are all poor value, so they all suck" type comment.

    I should add I've not played this yet. One thought though, this has co-op support right? Thats a whole load of replay value right there surely?

  • kangarootoo #67 5 years ago

    @Mapster

    +1

  • posh_geordie #68 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 18:45:04 02-01-2012

  • bonker #69 5 years ago

    ""How is it a "bloody good game"? It's five short levels of identical button mashing combat, against the same enemies using the same moves every step of the way. "

    Are we talking about Turtles or Gears of War now? :p"

    LMAO - I swear I was about to post exactly the same comment lol

  • bicky316 #70 5 years ago

    LOL @ andromeda!!

    As for the game not played it yet, but as for worms getting a 6/10, so wrong!!

  • bonker #71 5 years ago

    "So because Pac-Man loops 1 maze round for ever ..."

    That's not true.

  • DanWhitehead #72 5 years ago

    "One thought though, this has co-op support right? Thats a whole load of replay value right there surely?"

    Not really. Like I mentioned before, it's just the same five levels, a few more enemies, and four turtles instead of one. There's no meaningful multiplayer component to it, no room for even rudimentary co-operation between players. And as the game plays exactly the same every time, with enemies appearing in the same place, I don't really see why anyone would be compelled to play it through over and over. It's a classic example of how gameplay designed for the arcade falls flat when removed from its intended context.

  • MrFlintBlackman #73 5 years ago

    Ok eurogame we get it, give a really good old skool game a bullshit score so it makes you look all "cool" and "edgey" your not the Edge of internet you know!

    Your just a bunch of up your own asres twats.

  • kangarootoo #74 5 years ago

    @citizenHUNTER

    You can never take gamer points from players for any reason (I don't mean in practical terms, I mean as a principle). They represent progress, and to undo a symbol of progress goes against its very reason for being. Any game or activity that did would simply not sell.

    I totally understand your point mind, I just don't think gamerscore points are the right way to do it.

  • rudedudejude #75 5 years ago

    Pacman sucks!

    Every dang level is the friggin same! At least Turles had Variety!

    And you get to do moves and push buttons and stuff!

    wtf can pacman do?!

    left, up, down right.

    oooh scare me with your 4 directions pac man! Turtle Power!
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 13:13

  • kangarootoo #76 5 years ago

    @MrFlintBlackman

    Cock.

    Have a glass of milk and calm down ffs. Its not like TMNT payed your way through school or anything is it?

  • bonker #77 5 years ago

    "wierd. My now ex-girlfriend, made me boot this up on my mame cabinet the other night. I stood behind her watching as she sang heroes in a halfshell and kept dying every 10 secs. I got dumped the next day.
    i hate the frakkin game. "

    Turtle games and girls don't mix son. Live and learn :)

  • sharpfish #78 5 years ago

    One day they may stop selling us stuff that has no right to be sold anymore. I want NEW indie/Small co games on XBox live, not stuff from my childhood for £££. There are exceptions but most of this feels like shovelware.

  • bonker #79 5 years ago

    "wtf can pacman do?! "

    He can eat fruit n ghosts (and keys if you're ace!).

  • #80 5 years ago

    I wish I had the ability to throw darts into the backs of certain comments posters heads, that would be just fantastic.

  • MrFlintBlackman #81 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I'm a cock for having a difference of opinion? or insulting Eurogamer?

    Whatever mate.

  • Lukus #82 5 years ago

    Oh FFS! Can people not understand that Pac Man has proper game play mechanics that are still enjoyable today. Its simple graphics are not an issue. The same can't be said for turtles. The game play by today's standards is absolutely atrocious and it looks appalling too. There are no redeeming features beyond that of nostalgia.

  • Retroid #83 5 years ago

    It's a dodgy conversion. Unfiltered (not even bilinear or scanlines?!) graphics and about as hamfistedly shoved onto the 360 as possible. Plus, it's on the hardest difficulty setting by the looks of it.

    Even so, that score is just stupid in comparison to earlier, simpler games for the same price which had less to offer but scored double.

  • Mr_Whacker #84 5 years ago

    Mapster and Kanga - you need some kind of consitency. Or editorial policy. Or something. Otherwise we have no context. So in its absence I'll just ignore Whitehead's reviews.

    Sure, different people score differently for the same game but to say that Game A is old, brief and = crap when Game B is old, brief = brilliant is just meaningless.

    So had Kristan reviewed Turtles it would have gotten a 7. Or anything. I've read EG for years and I can't even give a ball park estimate for a game. How is a review site with that policy of any value to me? Tell me something that looked shit is actually great - why would I believe you when your colleague probably thinks its shite? Or if your humors were in a different phase today it would score higher. I can talk bullshit about games for ever, I don't need a pro site for that. What I need is objectivity from someone who has seen most games of the type.

  • Keso #85 5 years ago

    I think IGN have got it spot on:

    http://uk .xbox360.ign.com/articles/772/7...

  • rudedudejude #86 5 years ago

    Can anyone say that Pacman would hold their attention longer than Turtles! At least I'd get at least half an hour of turtles, after map 4 of pacman which is identical to every other level in the game I'd probably faint.

    You cant' have 4 direction controls only, you need a shoot button at least!

    Madness!

    Retro reviews are very hard to pull off, at the time I'm sure this would have got an 8 or so.

  • Carlo #87 5 years ago

    What idiot fanboy voted this a 10/10 game?

  • andrewwd #88 5 years ago

    What the fuck is up with the background graphic framing the screen (can be seen in that IGN review). That may be the most ugly, amateurish thing I have ever seen. It's not even art from the correct era...jesus, that alone is worth about -5 from any review score.

  • rudedudejude #89 5 years ago

    IGN in moderately good review shocker

  • DanWhitehead #90 5 years ago

    "Sure, different people score differently for the same game but to say that Game A is old, brief and = crap when Game B is old, brief = brilliant is just meaningless."

    My chief complaint against TMNT isn't that it's old or brief. It's that its a skeletal experience that was - as I said in the review - already outclassed by its side-scrolling peers in 1989. It's shortcomings weren't as apparent in 1989 because we were all younger, and because the gameplay dynamic was suited to coin-shovelling. When you can sit down and play the whole thing from start to end in less time than it takes to download the average demo, without breaking a sweat, the experience changes fundamentally.

  • elvenearth #91 5 years ago

    SNORE!!

  • dudefella #92 5 years ago

    @ Adam_T

    I know, it's crazy. Gamespot had the right idea too, got a 6.9 I believe. Strike a balance between reviewing this with current standards in mind and the retro, 5 dollar quick-fun mindset.

    But as for the 'not much replay value, every level is the same every time you play it" etc argument, that goes for almost every single player game ever.

  • rider2006 #93 5 years ago

    Bigger gamesites reviews of the TMNT arcade:

    [link url= http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/772/772896p1.html
    ]http://uk .xbox360.ign.com/articles/772/7...[/link]

    [link url=http://uk.gamespot.co m/xbox360/action/teenagemutantninjaturtles/review.html?sid=6 167408&om_act=convert&om_clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule;pic ks;title;3
    ]http://uk .gamespot.com/xbox360/action/te...[/link]

    These sites review this game better with a average score of 7. I still dont undestand the eurogamer review. Both IGN and Gamespot says the game is worth 400.

  • Lionheart #94 5 years ago

    "Boss fights follow no set pattern or strategy, so just keep jumping and pounding away."

    That was the fun when i was a kid... 3/10 is harsh...

  • Lagto_Soa #95 5 years ago

    I poured money into this back in the 80s, and after unlocking it in one of the GameCube Turtles games last year, got genuinely excited at being able to play through it again with my kids.

    Irreparable damage to rose-tinted glasses swiftly followed. Despite getting to play it for free we soon abandoned the futile struggle to have fun.
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 14:02

  • Hog-lumps #96 5 years ago

    Straight from the EG score policy;

    A three will be an often quite punishing gaming experience. It will be the kind of game that in all likelihood you can tell is bad just by looking at it. Screenshots may well suggest otherwise, but see it running and you're immediately likely to tell why it's bad without having to get your hands dirty. The controls will almost certainly be shoddy, the playability will be all over the place, crash bugs will probably be evident, graphical glitches, camera problems, nightmarish and arbitrary difficulty hikes that inspire new swear words and quite probably some cringeworthy attempts at cool or the kind of storytelling that ought to be outlawed by an EU directive. You'll definitely want your money back, and you'll tell your gaming friends to stay the hell away, or you'll show them it just to punish or amuse them,

    Sounds about right to me :) Not sure what the fuss is about?

  • DFective #97 5 years ago

    I predict this sham of a review to be pulled to save face.

  • Toothball #98 5 years ago

    @Liggur

    Just skip this retro trash and get on and release Catan to live, that what i'm holding back my MS points for.

    That's exactly my plan too. Been waiting for Catan for ages now, but other things keep happening instead. It's showing up in the newsletters, so it has to be soon?

  • spidermanalf #99 5 years ago

    Lets face it, they should have released Turtles In Time instead, it was loads better than this!

  • trevd72 #100 5 years ago

    my opinion is that xbla has been a complete failure and farce. you can not pull a couple of good games out of your arse to justify how bad it is and the fact the DRM is broken.

  • Mr_Whacker #101 5 years ago

    When you can sit down and play the whole thing from start to end in less time than it takes to download the average demo,

    Thats quite similar to it being too brief. Some folks wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

    Of course its short, its bloody old. But does that mean a low score on a retro game or is it just a game you play over and over for score? Or just cos you feel like it? How long should a £3.50 game be? An average demo takes around 2 hours on my connection, so finish it with 3 groups of friends twice - that sounds OK to me.

  • Lutz #102 5 years ago

    "Stalybridge Palace Theatre"

    A local! Wasa good cinema the Palace. Much better than the Metro.

  • playgen #103 5 years ago

    I pretty much ignore retro reviews on this site, and in a lot of other mainstream press. Because other than games that seem set in stone as classics, mario and the like, everything gets hated for having older play mechanics.

  • S_Nashwan #104 5 years ago

    I am very keen to play this. If only to see if it can replicate the multiple credits cheat the arcade version had. All you had to do was when the 'credit' button started flashing you had to bash it as fast as possible a-la hypersports and if you did it correctly you would be rewarded with 'cowa-cowa-cowa-cowa-cowa-bunga!' instead of a measly 'cowabunga' and one credit.

    Ah Happy days, must have saved at least 3 quid doing that, which in them days..... etc etc etc ect

  • Markusdragon #105 5 years ago

    Out of interest, if you're coming here and disagreeing with the review, what's the point of reading the review in the first place? Surely if you already decided it was good, or simply that you were going to get it no matter what, the review is redundant.

  • bloodflowers #106 5 years ago

    Terrible review.

    No, really, really bad. Unavoidable damage? Hardly. I could get nearly to the end on a credit back in the day. That's the point - to see what you can achieve with one credit.

    It's the best thing to hit XBLA since Contra. Perhaps the reviewer just doesn't actually /like/ arcade games. Well sorry for the reality check, but this is pure arcade gaming. It's better than Simpsons which they came up with later, but not as good as Crime Fighters which is earlier, and not as good as the better Capcom brawlers.

    For 400 points it's a big slice of fun though.

  • #107 5 years ago

    More 3/10 reviews of crap games please!

    This is why I love EG, tell it like it is. Except with Pac man ;)

  • Vin #108 5 years ago

    [link url=http://hdrlying.com /2007/03/15/post-mortem-impressions-tmnt-1989-arcade-for-xbo x-live-arcade/
    ]http://hd rlying.com/2007/03/15/post-mort...[/link]

    The REAL MAN'S review.

  • gelf #109 5 years ago

    I love beat em ups but I mostly agree with the review, I never thought much of this game. Its poor compared to the Streets of Rage series.

  • Garibaldi #110 5 years ago

    "What the fuck is up with the background graphic framing the screen (can be seen in that IGN review). That may be the most ugly, amateurish thing I have ever seen. It's not even art from the correct era...jesus, that alone is worth about -5 from any review score."

    Surprised more people and reviews haven't mentioned this, it's so bloody distracting, keeps snagging your eye like a rusty fish-hook.

  • IAmBatman #111 5 years ago

    > Of course its short, its bloody old.

    Lots of old games aren't short.

  • kangarootoo #112 5 years ago

    @MrFlintBlackman

    Good question. Let me clarify.

    "Your just a bunch of up your own asres twats."

    That is why you are a cock. You're welcome.

    P.s. might I suggest you learn to spell arse.

  • JayPee #113 5 years ago

    119 Comments.

    I see the score worked as intended.

    /Sulks off into a corner grumbling about how cynical the site has become.

  • ApHoTiK #114 5 years ago

    I'd buy this for old times sake, Eurogamer must of been in a bad mood when they reviewed this one heh

  • Hog-lumps #115 5 years ago

    119 Comments.

    I see the score worked as intended.

    /Sulks off into a corner grumbling about how cynical the site has become.

    Heh, I see it more like an indication as to how cynical the forumites have become ;)
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 16:18

  • Hunam85 #116 5 years ago

    Its a shame EG dont like this, i think its great mindless fun :)

  • smelly #117 5 years ago

    Having downloaded the demo last night. I concur.

    Shite.

    Rose tinted glasses have never been so tinted (since playing worms)

  • JayPee #118 5 years ago

    Root Beer Tapper: 5

    Hmm.

  • jonsaan #119 5 years ago

    In EG's defence, they really can't win can they? I have seen scores of people having a pop at Krudster for scoring other retro titles high and now this.

    Retro is what it is. Some will love it, some will hate it.

  • smelly #120 5 years ago

    @jonsaan : Not exactly. Some retro games play as well now as they did in the day. They're deep gaming experiences where the fact the graphics no longer hold up doesnt matter, because they still play well.

    This on the other hand doesnt.

    Play the demo.. it's shite!

  • jonsaan #121 5 years ago

    @Smelly

    Yes but my point is , to someone it's a 10/10. It depends on the memories it stirs up surely.

    I mean I've lost count of the number of people bashing Pacman on this thread. To me Pacman will always be videogaming perfection.

    The same with Scramble, I love it and most people think it's shite..
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 16:43

  • smelly #122 5 years ago

    Hey, back in the day I *LOVED* this game. I used to pump so many coins into it with my friends after school, it's unbelievable..

    But nowadays it doesnt stand the test of time.. Its shite, both graphically and in gameplay. They shouldve at least have done what double dragon has done and updated the gfx..


    I was going to mention some games which DO stand the test of time, but when i started listing them i realised that people would just accuse me of being a fanboy for a certain developer, so i stopped.

  • SmileyDudette #123 5 years ago

    have you seen the TMNT trailers?
    /goes off to barf

  • DanWhitehead #124 5 years ago

    "Thats quite similar to it being too brief. Some folks wouldn't be able to tell them apart."

    I'll clarify. An old game being short isn't, in itself, a Bad Thing. But when the game in question is shorter than most of its peers, and isn't that much fun to play, then longevity is just one factor that led to this oh-so-controversial score.

    "Of course its short, its bloody old. But does that mean a low score on a retro game or is it just a game you play over and over for score?"

    Scoring is almost incidental in a game like this. Games like Pac-Man (which seems to be the comparison of choice for some reason) work on a score basis because the challenge is to keep going as long as possible, clocking up ridiculous points. Turtles has a finite end. There's an absolute ceiling on how many points you can get.

    "That's the point - to see what you can achieve with one credit."

    Then this release fatally breaks that gameplay dynamic, by not giving you the option of playing with one credit. It gives you a set amount, which are more than enough to get the end of the game, even if you're not trying. It's a stupidly difficult game that's now stupidly easy to finish.

    "Perhaps the reviewer just doesn't actually /like/ arcade games. Well sorry for the reality check, but this is pure arcade gaming."

    Actually, I love arcade games. I'm as nostalgic for the Olden Days as the next adult gamer. But on no sensible planet does Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles qualify as "pure arcade gaming". Agree to disagree, I guess, but the notion that this flimsy cash-in represents some sort of genre highpoint really needs to be put to rest. It's like arguing that Open Season is a classic of the platform genre.

    "A local! Wasa good cinema the Palace. Much better than the Metro."

    The Palace had that scuzzy charm that real old cinemas had. The Metro was always a bit posher (probably why they used it for East Is East). Best bit about the Palace was that it still had a balcony upstairs where you could smoke and drink. I remember being the only person to go and see Army of Darkness there for that reason. Probably a Yates' Wine Bar by now...

    "Yes but my point is , to someone it's a 10/10. It depends on the memories it stirs up surely."

    Criticism can't - and shouldn't - take such subjective variables into account though. With a game like this, all you can do is judge it on two fronts - how does it compare to similar games of its era, and how does it play today? I remembered it as being one of my favourite arcade games, but Turtles fails - for me - on both fronts.

    I wonder if they put Ocean's Terminator 2 game on XBLA there'd be people proclaiming that to be a stone-cold 7/10 harmless fun classic?
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/07 @ 17:51

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #125 5 years ago

    I've just played this (thank you PartnerNet).

    he's right, it really isn't very good. The pixelly graphics and standard Live stretch-screen-to-fit stuff make it look particularly bad, too.

    Get the demo when it comes out in the real world and you'll see.

  • smelly #126 5 years ago

    ah.. Didnt realise it's not out in the "real-world" yet.

    That explains the bitching. Everyones still looking with rose tinted glasses. Once they play the demo they'll probably change their tune.


  • DanWhitehead #127 5 years ago

    It's been available to PartnerNet toffs and the common proles alike since yesterday morning.

  • smelly #128 5 years ago

    "I wonder if they put Ocean's Terminator 2 game on XBLA there'd be people proclaiming that to be a stone-cold 7/10 harmless fun classic?"


    Nope.. but if they put the spectrum copy of robocop on there, i would be :-)

  • jonsaan #129 5 years ago

    were they not called 'hero' turtles in the UK?

  • capcom23 #130 5 years ago

    stupid review. i guess the reviews isn't older then 20. if you're just as old as i am you'll love this game very much! Retro/arcade is for people from the 80's. This game deserves much higher score!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Next time let the reviewer be older then 20 and that likes this game! Not everyone like this game but it doesn't mean it's a bad game.

  • Barry619 #131 5 years ago

    It's pretty simple, if you were a kid in the late 80's early 90's who loved the Cartoon and played this to death in the arcade, you will love it for the nostalgia, which i fit right into, yes it's a terriblely boring game now-a-days, i've completed it and may never go back to it, but man i think the £3.20 was worth the fun of playing it through with 3 of my mates on Live and actually completing it, something we never did when we were kids.

    But i think thats the point of all these retro games really, very few are classics in the sense kids today will play and love them, but if your now in your 20's or more and a longtime gamer you will love owning and remebering some classic titles. I agree that how could this score less than Pac-Man, Pac-Man is crap! but thats because it was made before i was born, if i had first got into games when Pac-Man was the best thing around, i'm sure i'd enjoy playing that back and remembering.

  • MrFlintBlackman #132 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I'm a cock because you quoted me?

    So EG aren't up there own arse? (look I can spell arse sometimes!)

    If not then you really are dreaming.......

  • DanWhitehead #133 5 years ago

    Here's my litmus test for all games featuring popular licensed characters: if you took the characters out, would you still be interested in the game? If you replaced the Turtles with generic beat-em-up heroes and called it Street Dudes, would anyone even remember the damn thing? Probably not.

    Sure, some people might not mind spending a couple of quid to play this through a few times and relive some fond memories - but you can't review something using that as a criteria. You have to review the game itself.

    This game...

    1. Never changes - there's no learning curve, no need to get better at playing, the enemies in the last stage are the same as the ones in the first. Ditto for the bosses.
    2. Is shallow - there's no thought behind what moves you use, you just hit the same button over and over. It's a game that rewards perseverance over skill.
    3. Is very short - even more so, now that you can reach the end the first time you play.
    4. Has very little replay value - because you'll see everything the first time through, the scoring system is incidental, and the "co-op" mode features zero co-operation.

    All of this is pretty clearly laid out in the stupid ignorant review and - to my mind - more than justifies a score of 3/10 regardless of price. I'd rather waste £3.20 than £39, but I'd rather not waste money at all given the choice.

  • smelly #134 5 years ago

    "if you took the characters out, would you still be interested in the game? "

    They did.. it was a simpsons beat em up.. which is probably just as bad nowadays (but i remember it to be good)

  • jamhead #135 5 years ago

    Anyone coming to this game for the first time on XBLA would see it for what it is. Shallow, unfair and short lived. Only people who enjoyed this 'back in the day' and will get of on the nostalgic thrill of playing would score this well.

    There are other games of the same era which have decent underlying gaming mechanics that make them fun to play, even today.

    EG are spot on with the 3, in my opinion.

    People complaining that the *opinion* of EG is out of line with other review sites may as well just read gamestats. The 'context' of the different scores given to XBLA games is usually found in the body of the review... where the score is usually justified by the reviewer. If you want to know if you'll agree with the appraisal given to the game, read the text and see if the reviewers justification of the score is likely to fit with your thinking.

  • IAmBatman #136 5 years ago

    > if you're just as old as i am you'll love this game very much!

    I'm 29 and this game is shit.


    > Retro/arcade is for people from the 80's.

    Fair enough, it turns out I'm officially too old for retro gaming. Or you're a moron.
    Whichever's more likely, really.

  • FabricatedLunatic #137 5 years ago

    It's unfair, reptetive, basic, and dated. I can't argue with most of the points raised in the review. But I still love it.

  • DocTep #138 5 years ago

    Lutz
    15-Mar-07 14:15:05

    "Stalybridge Palace Theatre"

    A local! Wasa good cinema the Palace. Much better than the Metro.


    Bloody hell, two locals now? Me makes three...

    I'll always remember seeing Star Trek: First Contact at the Palace, only for the power to cut out at several points, the final point at which they gave up and told everyone to leave being an hour into the movie (and then they didn't have the cash to refund everyone because they'd already allowed the takings to be collected). Still, the balcony seats were some of the comfiest cinema seats i've ever sat in, and even towards the end they were in a half-decent condition - unlike the Metro where the seats always looked like they'd been mauled by a rottweiler. The Palace and Metro were owned by the same person BTW. Don't think i'd class one as being more up-market than the other, just that the Metro was in a larger, more central town and so got the best films first usually.

    Um, i guess i'd better say something vaguely related to the game. The local place i used to spend too much money on this was at Copley Swimming Baths. I remember me and a mate wasting almost a fiver on it, only to run out of money on the last level much to our frustration.

    As for the argument raging here, i can see both sides really... Truthfully, it wasn't the best game of it's genre even when it was new, so if the XBLA release isn't much different than playing the ROM via MAME (with just the basic Live stuff added) then it's entirely understandable why a reviewer might rip it apart. On the other hand i do agree that EG's reviews are often a little too independent of each other. Having some sort of editorial continuity when it comes to review scores isn't the bad thing that so many magazines try to claim these days - without it it's difficult (sometimes impossible) to compare review scores which are all from the same place (abet different reviewers), and when you try you end up with some quite bizarre score comparisons. I suppose in a perfect world the score would be decided by the whole team and then the content of the review is left to the person writing it to give their more individual opinions. Obviously that leaves a danger of the text and score not matching up well, but a) that often happens anyway, and b) it could be argued that if the person writing the review totally disagrees with the opinions of the rest of the team then perhaps they shouldn't be the one to be writing the review after all (though their complaints should be taken into consideration by the person who does). Having said this, i get the feeling that EG is too freelancer heavy for such an editorial-driven direction to work...(?) The score certainly makes sense when put against the score given to Worms, but less so when compared to several earlier XBLA retro reviews.

    Incidentally, i have to agree that an 'out of 5' style system fits better for these cheaper, more impulse purchase level titles. Seems to work better for Teletext's GameCentral anyway.

    Oh, and last i heard the Palace was now a nightclub... :-/

  • Eighthours #139 5 years ago

    I could have sworn that I counted more than 5 levels. Maybe you mean 5 "areas" or something, as last night in co-op I'm sure we died on the 6th level.... at least.

  • NegativeZero #140 5 years ago

    It would have been a better idea to release the 1991 Turtles in Time version than this one, it was a lot better IMO.

  • Daikon #141 5 years ago

    Way too harsh.

    The whole point of retro-gaming is nostalgia, isn't it?
    Yes, of course this game is crap when played with a 2007 mindset.
    All XBox arcade titles are and yes that includes you Pac-Man, you shallow 2-dimensional pill popper.

    This game got glowing 9/10 reviews back when it was released.
    Played it on Mame last week and it was still fun. Shallow, but fun in a 1989 retro way.
    7/10 in my book.

  • muters #142 5 years ago

    Can't say I agree with a 3... double that, maybe. I've played through it about 6 times in co-op so far and it just doesn't get old. Grinding through each stage, trying to conserve every last bit of health for the Krang/Shredder massacre, listening to Donatello get egged on to beat up the bosses because his bo stick is a millimetre longer...

    I've probably enjoyed TMNT more than, say, Ninety Nine Nights, at least the former's cheap, cheerful, free of pretense and over before your thumb gets sore.

    S'one of the few XBLA releases I haven't regretted buying.

  • smelly #143 5 years ago

    >The whole point of retro-gaming is nostalgia, isn't it?

    Nope.. Its to play great games of a type which you cant get nowadays.

    For example, decent 2d platformers.

    Be honest, this game consists of bashing the attack button, and occasionally pressing jump out of boredom

    Edited by 1 at 16/03/07 @ 05:38

  • smelly #144 5 years ago

    >This game got glowing 9/10 reviews back when it was released.

    uh? Eh?

    and again.. uh?

  • the_sas_man #145 5 years ago

    The funny thing is, this game is my childhood. I remeber going to Spain and putting in 100 pesetas a go! I loved it.

    For that reason I'll be sucking up this game like an elephant in a peanut factory

  • trevd72 #146 5 years ago

    @Markusdragon - sorry to be all textbook but it is normal behavior for people to carry out post purchase research just as a reinforcement of the original decision to justify how you feel about the product.

  • smoison #147 5 years ago

    Wow EG insulted the ninja turtle fans who have now all gone to play with their figurines and cry.

    Shit game, and I agree.

  • Scientist #148 5 years ago

    "Not everyone like this game but it doesn't mean it's a bad game. "

    Some people like this game but it doesn't mean it's a good game...

  • cluster #149 5 years ago

    I guess here this movie ( http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=XtoWOiRRByU ) would be rated 3/10. Because, you know, it's boring, and the story is pretty lame, and there's no special effects at all... it's not sad or funny. 3/10 I say!

  • Arganoid #150 5 years ago

    Tried the demo last night. The game was kind of impressive in its day with all those big colourful sprites - the kind of thing I couldn't get on my Spectrum. But sure enough, the game hasn't stood the test of time well. It pretty much consists of "go up to the next enemy and hit the attack button repeatedly".

  • kangarootoo #151 5 years ago

    @MrFlintBlackman

    "I'm a cock because you quoted me?"

    Err, ok. I can agree to that.

    Whatever your views on EG's stance, spitting bile at them like a child is exactly that, the beaviour of a child.

    And for the record, I don't belive for a second that they score games to appear "edgey". They are professional journalists, so you make a mistake when you assume they they have the same purile motives as yourself.

    Lets just call this what it is. You like this game. The reviewer didn't and said so. So you spat your dummy out and descended into a tirade of abuse. Hardly the behaviour of a mature human being (I tend to like fighting fire with fire when dealing with obnoxious kids, hence my attack on you).

  • DanWhitehead #152 5 years ago

    Cluster, your comparison might just work if we were talking about giving 3/10 to Space Invaders or Pong - you know, games that were genuine pioneers of the medium.

    But we're talking about a Ninja Turtles game - a game that lazily slaps popular cartoon characters over a basic game template that was already outdated in 1989. Do you really want to compare that to the work of the Lumiere Brothers? What's next? ET on the Atari 2600 being compared to Mozart?

    The Ninja Turtles game is, at best, comparable to something like Krull. A cynical bandwagon jumper that puts in the bare minimum of effort, that somehow gets put on a pedestal by people too blinded by fuzzy nostalgia to seperate old things that are good and old things that they like.

  • Zuiyo #153 5 years ago

    Dan Whitehead, I am sorry but you are not prepared to review these type of games. You lack the apreciation and the culture. Your opinion is just not relevant and you are just lucky the EG editor allows you to publish your bile. You hate these games, or pretend to which is even worst, and then write this polemic bullshit. You gave us the same crap when reviewing the Capcom classics on PSP and of course, done it again. You just act like another conveyor belt underaged reviewer with zero understanding of old videogames.
    Edited by 1 at 16/03/07 @ 10:54

  • sanctusmortis #154 5 years ago

    *Switches old MegaDrive port on*

    Hey! All I have to do is attack stuff and jump!

    Like, er, most games of the type...

    It's not so much a review as an "I don't get it".

  • DanWhitehead #155 5 years ago

    For the record I've been playing games since 1981 and reviewing them professionally since 1991. Disagree all you like with my assessment of the timeless classic that is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles but don't make the mistake of thinking I'm some teenaged pleb who just thinks "old games is all boring, innit".

  • DanWhitehead #156 5 years ago

    @sanctusmortis

    If you think that all games of this type are simply "jump and attack stuff" then I'm not the one missing the point. TMNT, when compared even to the side-scrollers of the late 80s/early 90s, a half-arsed effort. I've spelt out the reasons why in the review and multiple times in this discussion. There's no gradient to the game, no progression from level to level, no thought or skill in how the one-note attack mechanism is employed. Play Streets of Rage. Play Final Fight. Play Renegade. All vastly superior side-scrolling fighting games, all games worthy of passionate defence. TMNT is not. It's simply the make-do ancestor of the cash-in licensed games so vilified when they're released today. The fact that this one is twenty years old doesn't excuse its shoddy design.

  • Azazel #157 5 years ago

    Streets of Rage 2 = the win

  • smelly #158 5 years ago

    "Hey! All I have to do is attack stuff and jump!

    Like, er, most games of the type... "


    If the only games you play are ones where you repeatidly tap the attack button and it does the same thing every time.. Then I feel sorry for your gaming choices.

  • krudster #159 5 years ago

    /despairs at humanity

  • smelly #160 5 years ago

    Noticed that the NES turtles game is on VC.. infintiely better game..

    Get that instead :-)

  • SomaticSense #161 5 years ago

    My review of Pong:

    - Shit graphics
    - Incredibly repetitive
    - Very short, both in game length and replayability
    - Doesn't compare at all well with current releases on the 360 and PS3

    I give the game a 3/10

    "A co-op mode is only of value if you can actually co-operate with other players. This just lets four people bludgeon their way through the same levels at the same time - there's no interaction between the characters or players."

    Fucksake. This isn't Gears of War or anything, this is a 20 year old game! What you described is how ALL multiplyer 'co-op' in those days worked.

    The Jag E-Type's a bit shit isn't it? I mean with no power steering, ABS, traction control or even electric windows or central locking, it's just plainly a shocking car and nowhere near to the level of quality of the new Merc S-Class.
    No night vision camera, or light sensing 'see around corners' headlights? What were Jaguar thinking when they made that piece of shit?

  • DanWhitehead #162 5 years ago

    "What you described is how ALL multiplyer 'co-op' in those days worked."

    Not true.

    And besides, my point wasn't that the game is bad because the co-op isn't sophisticated, but that this limited co-op mechanic means the option to play on Xbox Live isn't enough to make any difference to the fundamental flaws in the game.

    But then, apparently, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is now the gaming equivalent of the Jaguar E-Type...*sigh*

  • Xinch #163 5 years ago

    There is no skill to playing this game - "you can hit the guy to your left, but only at the expense of the guy to your right shooting you in the back" as observed above.

    There is no reflection of skill in playing this as a consequence.

    I wonder does it still spell "dimension" wrong at the end or has that been corrected?

  • DanWhitehead #164 5 years ago

    Yes, it still says "Dimention X".

  • cawley1 #165 5 years ago

    Well, it would appear that public opinion is the total opposite of the review score.

    I am the sort of mug who bought the Jamma board of this because I thought I would never see an arcade perfect conversion (outside of Mame!) at home because of licensing issues, so for that point alone, hopefully present-day holders of IP can work with the owners of the same IP back in the day and we might see some more classics (Temple of Doom, Simpsons etc.)

    Bearing in mind I probably paid around £30 for the PCB, to me less than £4 for this seems a steal and I obviously do enjoy it - how many 20 year old arcade scrollers are going to hold up in this day and age?

  • SomaticSense #166 5 years ago

    But then, apparently, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is now the gaming equivalent of the Jaguar E-Type...*sigh*"

    Alright then, Ford Capri, a car that is definitely not up there with the Ferraris and Astons of the day, but one that is still held in high regard by many people still.
    Admittedly the Jag E-Type was a bad example but it was the first old car that popped into my head.

    ""What you described is how ALL multiplyer 'co-op' in those days worked."

    Not true.    "

    Name one then. Name one that had the co-op depth of a Halo or a Gears of War that was made in 1989 or previous that didn't just amount to multiple players playing the single player at the same time.

    "And besides, my point wasn't that the game is bad because the co-op isn't sophisticated, but that this limited co-op mechanic means the option to play on Xbox Live isn't enough to make any difference to the fundamental flaws in the game. "

    Then maybe you should've elaborated on that then, because that is certainly not what you were implying before.

    It isn't a great game, that I admit. But to say it is so shit when compared to many of the other older games that have been released on XBLA so far is ridiculous. I'm not usually one for ratings (do away with 'em I say) but a 3 when compared with some of the 6's and 7's given to some of the other toss is pathetic. It never set the world alight, but it is still better and - more importantly - more fun than most of the other 'classic' shit on released Live.

    But yeah, opinions are opinions and all that.

  • smelly #167 5 years ago

    I fail to see how tapping one button infinitly, with little or no skill involved is fun?

    The thing is, something like pacman does require skill.. Something like this is just an excercise in button mashing.

    meh

  • kangarootoo #168 5 years ago

    I've played the demo for this now. Personally, and assuming the demo is representative, I think the review is on the money.

    Button hammering, coin eating (if there were coins), seemingly random... Not a whole lot of fun to be honest.

    As I recall, I found the original arcade game to be a similar experience. But back then there was a novelty surrounding these things. The gfx were better than any home system, 4 player multiplayer on one cab was rare, it had the TMNT in it.

    But I still remember it being quite a hollow money scoffing experience. And as others have already said, there were much better ways to spend your gaming money, both back then and now.

    Each to their own of course, but I think people need to stop trying to murder Dan with words. If I had been writing the review I would have said similar things and given it a similar score.

    If we lived on the moon and the only choices available were buy this for £4 or eat some dust, I might say "yeah its only £4, why not". However, we are surrounded by choice and I defy any gamer not to find a better way to spend £4 feeding their hobby. That is what it really comes down to, in this day and age every single gamer on here could find something more rewarding for £4 whatever their own personal tastes.

  • Cedric_the_Dragon #169 5 years ago

    This game seen as a great game when it came out. It is only weakly related to the cartoon. It seems good value to me but why pay for it when you can have it for free on Mame?

  • Xinch #170 5 years ago

    Fair play to Mr. Whitehead for spending time here answering comments.

  • TheEnd #171 5 years ago

    This review deserves applause for evaluating the game on its (few) merits, rather than obsessing over its sentimental value.

    Some of the commenters could learn from it.

    The reality is that many seem caught up in the nostalgia and fun of the characters, to the point of overlooking the fact that the game is in fact, shit.

    There's no harm in loving this game, but don't try and pretend it's anything other than a poor game.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/07 @ 23:46

  • Daikon #172 5 years ago

    The reality is that many seem caught up in the nostalgia and fun of the characters, to the point of overlooking the fact that the game is in fact, shit.

    Like Pac-Man you mean?

  • capcom23 #173 5 years ago

    People are only talking about you don't need skills in this game. This is just a hackslash game and nothing more. And on arcade machine it was never meant to be a long game. You want a long game get a full xbox 360 game!!!!!! You can also say this about gear of wars sweeties. That is also a simple shootergame. Just press the trigger or the a button and try to not to get hit by your enemy and get them down just like the turtle game.

  • smelly #174 5 years ago

    Okay. I have a theory that the people moaning about the score havent even played it on arcade at all (not even the demo).

    Otherwise they'd realise how stupid they were sounding.

  • smelly #175 5 years ago

    "You can also say this about gear of wars sweeties. That is also a simple shootergame"


    Oh come off it.. it's nothing of the sort.

  • eurocloak #176 5 years ago

    Pathetic review. I'm really shocked Eurogamer stooped this low.


    Oh wait....