Dragon's Lair 3D
Xbox- Publisher: Ubisoft
- Release Date: Nov 18, 2002
Buy Now
- Critic score
- Publication
- By date
-
It's a fun game for anyone that likes a good dungeon crawl, while fans of the arcade original will count this title among the best classic game updates ever.
-
Official Xbox MagazineCrisp visuals, smooth control, and hours of gameplay. [Jan 2003, p.76]
-
Cheat Code CentralControl is the key to this game and for the most part the controls are set-up very well. [Chris]
-
A stunning recreation of the original vision.
-
Game InformerEnemy AI and targeting are very suspect. [Jan 2003, p.113]
-
Newer gamers who haven't played the original might find this game to not be worth the trouble due to the difficulty.
-
Does rather well on all fronts, but even so, doesn't really have an element that makes it stand out from the crowd around it.
-
Xbox Nation MagazineBottom line, the game is solid - it's very challenging, great to look at, and very different from its peers. [Winter 2002, p.97]
-
AceGamezIt's never going to win any awards for best game but it's fun while it lasts and you can't put a price tag on those nostalgic twinges you get whilst playing it.
-
Does a good job of staying faithful to the original game, while extending and deepening the gameplay experience by a huge degree.
-
A game that relies so heavily on precise timing of jumps needs to provide the player with tight, responsive controls, something Dragon's Lair 3D fails to do.
-
Recommended only if you're uncontrollably and incomprehensively addicted to the original.
-
As far as platforming 3D games go, DL3D is mediocre at best, but looking at the game from the perspective of how it compares to the original, it does a little better.
-
A playable game with a some enjoyable moments. If you've got the patience to struggle with the less than perfect control, go ahead and rent this one.
-
Primarily a nostalgia piece, and while it is an extremely faithful recreation, therein lies the problem. What it does well has been done before, and the attempts to innovate the series for the most part fail.
-
Its short length, bland storyline and by-the-numbers gameplay aren't going to win over the new, more demanding generation of gamers.
-
Play MagazineWhere the game lacks is in the repetitive nature of the battles and enemy types, but the beautiful locales, spectacular animation, diverse gameplay, and 1080 degree high-def TV option, more than bring up the rear. [Dec 2002, p.77]
-
One of those game revivals that bears enough resemblance to its source material to draw up some nostalgia for the original, and yet it also exposes the weaknesses of the original, effectively betraying your nostalgia and retroactively tainting the original game.
-
Not worth your time or money, and it's certainly a shame for fans of this once-groundbreaking series.
-
Feels too slow and disjointed. Each area is small and the game doesn't do a convincing job of making you feel you are inside one huge interconnected castle.
-
GameNowThis title would be a lot of fun, if only the hero wasn't such a headache to control. [Jan 2003, p.58]
-
Electronic Gaming MonthlyA camera system that hates you dominates throughout. [Jan 2003, p.194]
-
Sadly, the latest incarnation of that landmark effort doesn't have the personality, lush animation or blisteringly fast pace that made the original such a hit. What it does have is...not much.
-
Entertainment WeeklyStumbles in its own execution. The most heinous act? The herky-jerky camera angles that will have you reaching for a Dramamine. [17 Jan 2003, p.87]
-
It adheres to dated, formulaic gameplay far too much and is over quickly. But I grew up on this game, and if you did too, you will likely have some fun with this as a rental.
-
An exceptionally generic platformer shaped around quick trial and error design and limp enemies, and built around a tired looking cel-shaded engine that does little justice to the visuals of the arcade original.
-
A terrible game... It may not be the worst game of the year, but it is the most disappointing.
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 3 out of 5
-
Mixed: 1 out of 5
-
Negative: 1 out of 5
-
Jan 26, 2020
-
DavidGDec 10, 2009