Matt Bielby (remember him?) (Yes! Ed) complained emphatically about the drug-orientated plot of this game when he was first let loose upon it back in early 1991. Should, he asked, brutal death really be the happiest solution to drug dealing and abuse? Mass slaughter is something we're used to in computer games and, given a suitably fictitious plot, nothing that justifiably warrants arguing with. But when we are led to believe that people are to be murdered just because they have become caught up with drugs, surely this is not acceptable. Or at least, so Matt reckoned.
Gadgy also awarded NARC a not-to-be-sniffed-at 72'. Hang on - 72'? What was this man on? Frankly, this is one of the worst sideways-scrolling Rococop-esque shoot-'em-ups that I have ever played. Okay, so he complained that it was repetitive - twelve almost identical levels (give or take the backdrops) where the action consist solely of walking along shooting people may get boring. The fact that there's no inter-acterable scenery the way there are no baddies on-screen, or else loads of them congregating rudely about you doesn't exactly add to the game. The large number of credits available means that games tend to take ages anyway. The chances are that, without the precision shooting needed of a Robocop, you'll get very bored. It's also multiload (despite being 128K only), the graphics are jerky and badly drawn, the separate key for crouch/jump is annoying and the 3D effect is totally unconvincing. I tried to track Matt down to ask him how he could have given this game such a high rating. YS is a family mag, so we are unable to print his terse but pertinent reply here.
Really sophisticated, these Narc 2000's. They can identify a suspect and pull his whole profile. But can they play Manic Miner? Eh? Eh?
Hello. We're the East Croydon Male Voice Choir in Dirty Raincoats and we'd like to sing to you a collection of our favourite hymns. (Blam blam blam!) You scamp.