Glover Review (Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 5, Switch & PC)

If Bubsy has taught us anything about the video game industry, it’s that bad games are often more likely to garner critical attention and generate enough negative publicity to span a sequel or, in some instances, an even worse port. Take Glover, for example; its original incarnation was never a perfect platforming game to begin with, but it had enough of a lukewarm fan base to give it the forward momentum needed to conceive a spiritual successor and port. And that’s what brings us to this review: the fact that a small fan base has collectively decided to give Glover a platform to sprout its modernized image on consoles and PC. Are we happy about it? We’re on the fence, but like all of the others in the community, we’re also as equally confused about the fact that it’s even here at all. Still — at least it isn’t Bubsy.

Speaking from the heart, Glover isn’t all that different from Bubsy. And, while that isn’t exactly speaking highly of the glove puppet and its vibrant homestead, it is a companionship that just feels like a good fit. It also fits into a wider spectrum of platforming games—Croc, Super Monkey Ball, and Banjo Kazooie, for example. It’s this era of bubbling platforming-puzzler chapters that Glover first found its feet. Did it sell well in its chosen market? Eh, it wasn’t a terrible launch; on the contrary, several publications praised a lot of its signature features, with PC Zone even going as far as to say that it was “good, clean, harmless fun in reasonably 3D rendered landscapes.” But that was just one side of the coin; PC Zone later scored it a 56, claiming that it wasn’t “particularly interesting.” And guess what? That same game has just launched a port.

If the Glove Fits…

To be absolutely clear, it doesn’t. No, what you have here, unfortunately, is something of a shameless joke—a questionable cash grab that doesn’t do much to rectify the issues that plagued the original version. Oh, Glover is all here, as are its wholesome family-centric levels and spruced-up puzzles — but so are the bugs and other technical errors that comprise a bad port. It’s a bit of a mixed bag, if anything, as it does manage to do some things well—the implementation of several of its origin characteristics and mechanics, being as true to the source as possible. However, it also brings a lot of those shoddier aspects that once dismantled the original and robbed it of its glory, like a lack of technical polish, and not to mention a litter of audiovisual bugs and other half-baked jitters.

Glover isn’t a bad game. However, it isn’t that great of a port, as it doesn’t do anything strictly right for it to warrant the revival of its label. Of course, if this was written twenty-five years ago, then I might have said something different; I would’ve naturally praised a lot of its features and spoke highly of its advanced capabilities for its time. Alas, this is 2025 — and we’re a little more skeptical about things than we were back in 1999. And it’s because of this, that I can’t simply gloss over the lack of polish and resort to showering it with endless lashings of praise. Truth is, there isn’t a lot going on here, and it begs the question of whether or not its creators made the effort to rebuild it, or if they settled for squeezing the udder in exchange for nostalgia fodder and a quick buck.

Ten Points for Accuracy

Glover plays like an old-school platforming game; mechanically, it feels sluggish and wooden, and it doesn’t exactly do much to coerce you into thinking that it’s deserving of any major awards, either. Like its predecessor, the game mostly consists of navigating several overtly vibrant biomes, rolling the trusty ball around different variations of puzzling terrain, and collecting the odd item or scoring the occasional point in an allotted amount of time. To this end, Glover is, if anything, a true testament to the forefathers of old. Is it always an entertaining experience? Eh, it has its moments, and it isn’t exactly short on its nostalgia factor, for that matter. However, due to several minor issues with its audiovisual properties, it isn’t always possible to enjoy these moments. And annoyingly, the port doesn’t do much to redeem these shortcomings, either.

Verdict

Glover was never a bad game; it was actually a great game — in 1999. But, times have since changed, and a modern version certainly needs more to warrant the homecoming of its fans than a simple rehash of its cardboard cutout features. Sadly, most of the things that make a modernized port are missing from the pot here, and it’s because of this that there’s just no telling which is the better option. Simply put, if you still have an old Nintendo 64 knocking about, then you might as well stick with the fodder and devote your time to the source, for the latest version probably isn’t going to be any different or perform any better than the first. But then again, it is a port that we’re talking about — so maybe this sort of comes expected at this point.

To state the obvious, Glover is incredibly outdated — yet there is indeed a market for these sorts of things, even though they are often marred by a lot of shoddy components. While the port isn’t as finessed as the newly refurbished versions of Spyro or Crash, it is an authentic representation of its forefather — and that’s a good sign, in ways. However, it also had the chance to rebuild a lot of broken bridges and bring several of its earlier atrocities into a modernized state  — but it chose not to. And I think that’s why Glover falls short of being a picture-perfect successor. Sure, it’s an accurate portrayal of its kin, but despite it having the breathing room to adopt better elements, it opted to illuminate its greatest downfalls.