It's again two different definitions of 'average'. When I'm talking about an 'average game', I mean average quality if all potential qualities are put on a linear scale - so that's three. What you mean is if this scale is 'weighted' with the number of occurences of these quality levels. I that case, I agree that the average is somewhere between 1 and 2.

As for the specific case of Ivanhoe, when I reviewed it (which was the last time I played it, so that's late 2000), I did get to the second level without cheating, and I definitely know I finished that in 1991 (or whenever it was exactly), too. The point where I always failed was the riding level. So that's about half of the game which I managed to finish without cheating, and that's very good for me already.

As I said, it's quite an old review / rating, and I sometimes do revise old ratings when I feel they aren't appropriate at all anymore. I'd have to replay the game again, of course, but lowering my rating to 4 could definitely be an option. Don't remember which rating on the old scale I actually gave it back then. However, I'm never making such decision in haste. If I still feel it should be changed a few weeks after playing the game again, I'll consider it, but definitely not earlier - until then, I have to trust my own judgement, no matter how old.

No. I'd give most games a rating of 1 (read: has something to it, [...] but is in the end not seriously playable). Ivanhoe is a case of doubt between 1 and 2, whereas I finally gave it a 2 because of good graphics sound, and (theoretical) gameplay variation. However, these good points are rather unimportant. The disadvantages:

1) Too hard from the start, too many enemies at once
2) Too fast to react properly
3) Bad controls

= "not seriously playable". I didn't get through the first level without cheating.

Yes, it is always tough to distinguish between nostalgia and actual quality gameplay. That is why I'm not saying 'my' rating is the ultimate truth.

Here are the points I like about the game:
-at least a little variation between the levels (riding, maze)
-no hyper-fast gameplay, but strike/block timing instead
-nice 'bosses'
-very good graphics

What could be better is the controls. They're sometimes not as responsive as I'd wish them to be. As for the difficulty, that's always hard to judge for me as most action games are too hard for me anyway. Keeping the second positive point in mind, I was convinced it weren't that bad - at least there are worse cases.

Whether it deserves a 5 or rather a 4, I'm not so sure. That's basically a random decision.

Now, I'm of course interested about your reasons for giving it a below-average rating. You said it's average, and that would mean 3, wouldn't it?

To tell the truth: It's virtually impossible. Besides that, the game is absolutely average. There's no feature that makes it better than 1000 others, except the hairstyle of the main character. Sure, it's got a psychological bonus because it you imported it from Fickm?hlen in the early 90s, but from a more neutral point of view, your rating of 5 is probably way to high.