Few more ACE scores:Batman 890
Solomons Key 790
Zelda II 901

Now moving onto C+VG's Mean Machines section:

Rad Racer, which oddly gets reviewed twice! 7/10 1st time around then jumps upto 84% on 2nd review.

*Scoring system gets 'odd' as well, things like graphics+sound still marked out of 10, but overall score is out of 100% in many cases

Pro-Am 6
Zelda 9
Punch Out 8
Pro-Wrestling 5
Mario Bros 80%
Nintendo Soccer 83%
Gradius 87%
**Super Mario II 97%, but then when reviewed in Machine Machines when it was a stand alone magazine, it was awarded 89%
Castlevania 81%
Top Gun 82%
Mach Rider 58%
Baseball 47%
**Double Dragon 83% (MS ver.reviewed alongside, gets 76%), again here new, lower score 2nd time around in M.Machines review, drops to 80%
Mega Man 89%
Wizzards And warriors 74%
**Life Force 87%down to 86% 2nd M.M review
Track+Field II 92%
Cobra Triangle 93%
Double Dribble 82%
Robo Warrior 56%
Batman 92%
**TMHT 89%-Jumps up a tad to 90% in 2nd M.Machines review
Festers Quest 56%
Silent Service 82%
Bionic Commando 81%
Skate Or Die 78%
Spy Vs Spy 84%
Road Blasters 47%
720 80%
Rescue (Aka Hostages) 41%

Black Manta 73%
Bubble Bobble 85%
Robocop 50%
Solar Jetman 94%
Blades Of Steel 79%
World Wrestling 85%
Batman 87%
Off-Road 8%
Mega Man 95%
Probotector 73%
Pinbot 90%
Snake, Rattle+Roll 94%
Bad Dudes 39%

So as Laird notes, UK press did'nt rave over things like Castlevania the away it's now claimed they did, nor did they go that crazy over ALL of  Rare's output, things like Pro-Am, Capt.Skyhawk etc scored average to good, Lot of the press loved things like NES Batman, Super Mario Bros, Zelda etc, but so far, after ploughing through 5 of the UK's multi-formats, i've failed to find anything that says the NES should be any more fondly recalled in todays UK press than the MS and after seeing so many great scores awarded to MS, ST, Lynx games etc, i'm left wondering why they are'nt getting the same degree of coverage.

NES exclusives aside, the reviews i've seen have been conversions from the arcade or the C64 or MSX.Very odd that the NES conversions are always brought up, but not so much the MSX originals.....

Closing look at scores and a few (more things) have jumped out, countless times you'd see a NES game get either a new review, or as part of a mini-review guide with a new score attached, just seen Mean Machines booklet NES review guide giving Black Manta 80% now, for example, few other scores jumped up a few points.

The NES CPU seems to be an issue when certain coin-op's were converted see Mean Machines rip into Operation Wolf 53% Slow, visually dissapointing, along with Rainbow Islands 67% ruined by slow gameplay, along with Bubble Bobble, wondering if last 2 are fault of poor coding or the hardware as C64 for example pulled off decent conversions of both.New Zealand Story gets 79%, better sound than coin-op, but far too easy to finish, Ghost's 'N' Goblins gets a mauling 55% as does Ikari warriors 48% again both fared very well on UK C64, Kick Off just as bad on NES it seems, 36%

I've yet to see a score raving about a Wizards+Warriors game Mean Machines gave the orig. 72% and Iron Sword 77%, so rather surprised to see a feature on the series in Retro Gamer a while back, did the series get unfair reviews? i've honestly never read of anyone really praising any of the games, so wonder why it was deemed worthy of coverage in RG?

Also, some very surprising scores for what i'd been led to believe were THE key games on NES by NES fans on various forums and RG articles, mentioned previous scores for Metal Gear and Castlevania, but Mean Machines rated Metal Gear at 52%, Metriod comes in at 80% and Kid Icarus at 68% not the scores i was expecting to be honest.

Boulderdash gets a 90%, Defender Of The Crown 59%-Worse than C64 Disk Ver.i wonder? (Only played ST version), Kung-Fu 72%, Marble Madness 85% (sounds better than the poor C64 version i played, thankfully), Paperboy 30%, Rygar 70 % (so better than awful C64 version), Smash TV 90%, Snakes Revenge 49% (knew that was said to be poor), TMHT:The Arcade Game 64%, Xevious 65% (I've no idea how good/bad a conversion this is, i hate the original, lol), Castelian 73% (always found the C64 version technically amazing but frustrating to play) and system seems to lack a decent Robocop game, Robocop 2 now pulling in 72%.

Sterling work, RT.

All these NES game magazine review scores plus the various comments they made regarding the NES hardware itself go to prove that those of us who've thus far posted in the thread all have an accurate memory of things as they happened those years ago.

There's no revisionist history on our part because what you've posted is history as it really happened back then. Such documented evidence as you (and Laird) have provided goes to prove that despite what certain others may claim the NES signally failed to impress the vast overwhelming majority of gamers here in the UK.

Even most of the so-called NES 'classics' failed to impress the gaming media here at the time.

Certain NES fansites, fanzines, ignorant Nintendo fanboys on the internet and nationally published print publications would seemingly have us believe differently. I'd like to think that the very vocal minority of pro-Nintendo revisionists posting on internet forums and the occasional misguided article in RG mean little in the grand scheme of things, i.e. that the majority of older gamers here in the UK remember what actually happened those years ago and roll their eyes when seeing such revisionist nonsense the same way we do here.

That said, there is a very real danger, in my opinion, of many of today's younger generations falling prey to the revisionist agenda and that dismays me. The concerns we're expressing have nothing to do with being 'anti-Nintendo' and everyting to do with not wishing for real history being revised and distorted beyond recognition by those too ignorant to know better and those with an agenda to push.

Great stuff everyone. 🙂

I've tried not to bore folks to tears by quoting scores without posting scans of said reviews (i don't have a scanner, plus it'd require bloody hours), but i felt i needed to post them along with comments from reviewers to.....well, just put the message out that i've not seen an ounce of this past history of the NES in UK, i had been led to believe.

Sure, the scores in publications vary, as i expected and some have changed scores in mini-review guides, but not by a margin where a great game is poor or vice versa and i've gone through 5 publications, all multi-format, to try and give a balanced look at way media treated NES, in order to prevent any possibility of 'you cannot trust X+Z they hated the NES1' type responses, i mean:Zero, Raze, TGM, ACE+Mean Machines alone, lot of reviewers there alone, factor in the article from Crash/Zzap where you've C64/Speccy reviewers praising the hardware as being a micro beater in several departments and i'd say the NES was given a very fair evaluation.

The arcade conversions, whilst graphically better in cases, arrived far too late, 8 Bit Micro owners had bought, played and moved on and thier versions were £10 or under, boasted better music in case of say the C64 version, or more playable due to running faster, in Speccy case than that of the NES versions, plus they were playing games with a lot more depth alongside the arcade conversions.

I'm not Anti-Nintendo (LOL, i'd be bloody hard pushed to be so owning GB, GBA, GC,GB Player at present and Ex-SNES and N64 owner) and niether are you (hell out of the 2 of us, you bought a Wii U) and nor is Laird (Wii owner).we are seasoned gamers who grew up in the NES era.

I'll admit i barely gave it a 2nd glance back then, but thought this thread would be chance to correct that.Yes, i was driven partly after reading so many Nintendo based articles in RG, i thought i'd really been blinkered, missed out on a lot of classics, had 'dabbled' with the NES on emulation, mainly to play Solar Jetman, see how NES versions of C64 games fared and hear Tim Follins work on the NES etc.But there was this over-riding 'message' coming from RG that the UK took the NES to it's chest and held on damn tight, i'm going to have to dig out old copies of RG and see what's said about UK reaction to games like Metal Gear, Castlevania, Wizards and warriors etc.It's bad enough the various PS2+PS3 mags seemed to think they were hip+cool talking about the original games on MSX+NES (bet writer was'nt even born when they were released), but i don't expect ANY publication to give me a version of events that never was.

Inspire me to discover a game or series or format i missed out on 1st time around, but don't p*ss on my back and tell me it's raining-any publication who takes that stance is unworthy of my time nor money, if you cannot find someone to write an honest account for an article, scrap the article.

Great stuff everyone. 🙂

Cheers mate-Trust me, you work night shifts and you'll set your mind to questioning everything you've been reading during tea breaks.Personal gripe of mine is reading that format X was AMAZING or was loved by all, or was utter sh*te and hated by all, when i either know that's not true or have the resources to discover just what real story is.

This is a worry, found an example already of my 'concerns' over direction certain publications are taking towards NES related pieces:

The Classic Game:Kid Icarus, 2-page feature, but thing that hit me? 'What The Press Said....ages ago' Magazine quoted Nintendo Power, which just happened NOT to review it as game was 12 months old by time magazine launched, fair enough, use a publication who DID review it then and ohhh i dunno, why not go for a respected, multi-format magazine, such as Mean Machines, here i'll show you how easy it is:Mean Machines review score for Kid Icarus 68%, not difficult was it?.Why not be honest an say game recived a mixed reception?.

Going for a review from a Nintendo only publication which never even reviewed it.....

Then you've the claims that it's the games difficulty that puts people off, ohh really? so same people who perhaps enjoyed Rick dangerous back then or Demon's souls today?.

Article says 1 reason it's so underated is it's extreme difficulty puts people off and they give in before getting past the 1st few screens-so by that logic are they 'suggesting' Mean Machines based the review on the 1st few screens alone and no-one on the team could get past them?.

Article says K.I is just as wondorous and surprising as the big three NES games:Mario, Zelda and Metriod, but more deserving of it's cult status...fair enough, opinion after all, but i wonder WHY magazine never felt it worthy of  such status/coverage until the 3DS version just happened to arrive.