While I don't necessarily disagree with the verdict here, the article is incorrect about R1 and R2 being out for XBLA. The version for XBLA has W1, W2 and W3.

Now I'm not really sure what these letters and numbers stand for. I think the "R" might stand for "road" because the Wii version has each location lined up along a path before you start a mission.

The Wii version has some other significant differences from the XBLA version also. It has 13 stages while W1,W2 and W3 for XBLA actually only has 12 stages. So in a way you could actually say that R1 alone is longer than the other version. This sounds misleading though because the XBLA (and presumably the iPhone) version is much more difficult than the Wii version.

While I think they made some nice design changes with the menus and interface for the Wii version, the lowered difficulty means that you can get a perfect on every stage in one sitting. Someone experienced in these types of games will likely score perfects on their first try through most of the stages.

Anyway, I did enjoy it quite a bit but it's still probably not worth the price seeing as you will likely only play it for a day and never come back to it.

Nothing against the author of this article, but it would be nice to see a review of this game from someone who has played the other versions out there. Every review I've found online is a one-sided review from someone who has only read about the other versions.

This review had me confused from the very first sentence: "Buy Hinterland and it’s just as likely you’ll walk away complaining that the score should have been doubled or halved." First of all, "just as likely" as what? Second, are you saying that if we buy the game we will think you should have given the game a 12 or a 3? This is just as confusing as the King's Bounty review.

I'm going to have to agree with the other comments. Even being familiar with Heroes of Might and Magic, this review really didn't do much to tell me what this game is like. And what is up with the pros and cons section? "Insane and joyous"? What the hell does that mean?

Also, there is no mention of the rest of the King's Bounty series. Does this have any relation to the New World Computing series of the 90's?

Given that this reviewer gave the game a "9", I would think they could have been a bit more thorough. I love Games Radar, but if you want a good review of this game, go read the one at IGN.

What's with the one paragraph review? Anyway, for anyone who's played the boardgame, you're likely to be mostly disappointed with this. I think the interface could have been designed better. My first major gripe was that there was a lot of wasted space in the design (notice the dark bands across the top and bottom), which means that you can't get a clear view of the whole map at once without zooming way out. With this game being in HD there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to get a clear, readable view of the whole map at once. This may sound like a minor gripe but there really isn't a whole lot to this game and looking at the board is something you are pretty much always doing. The demo actually lets you play a full game against the computer so for some, will leave little motivation to purchase the full game. I'd probably have to agree with this reviewer's score of "6", although I'd give the actual boardgame a "10" as it's really a game anyone can (and will) enjoy. Despite the low score, I still think it's worth downloading the demo.

Not a bad review but it would have been nice to get a little more info, such as differences with previous titles. They always seem to make some small changes to the game mechanics, almost as if they are experimenting. Also, many of the previous versions had a hidden multi-player option. Though, the last one I played (RotK X I think) did not have any multiplayer, I think due to the pseudo-realtime turn system.

Is this back to a traditional turn-based system? Is there a secret multi-player mode as in previous titles?