|
|
|
|
...
|
|
Most
text of the present article comes from various explanations
of ratings as published in various issues of of the British
C64 magazine ZZAP!64 (1985-1994). Certain features were
modified and new features introduced at various stages
of the magazine's 'life', so we'll fill this up as we
go... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All
Change (Issue 17) |
Sep
1986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
last month's ZZAP! I announced the retirement of Gary
Liddon from our reviewing team -- he's now happily ensconced
in the depths of North London helping get Thalamus,
the new software house, underway. He's been partly replaced
by 18 year-old newcomer Richard 'Dick' Eddy,
a Cornwellian (or is it Cornishman?) who hails from
Helston. Dick’s really an Amstrad man, but as a nifty
joystick wielder and arcade player, he was pressganged
by the gang and then seduced by the wonderful Commodore
graphics -- at least until AMTIX! needs him back.
Avid
'masthead' watchers (that's the narrow bit on the left
of the contents page) might have noticed two new names,
one with a familiar ring to it -- Jonathan Rignall,
and you would be right, for Jonathan is none other than
ZZAP! Ego King Julian Rignall’s younger brother. But
there’s little In common between them except blood --
Jonathan is bright, technically clever, handsome, modest
and (above all) intelligent! (It’s okay though, the
Scorelord is trying to get Julian to go to evening charm
school classes). He works upstairs in ‘Art’ In the repro
department, the ones responsible for geting all the
artwork onto final printer's film.
The
other new name is the rather exotic Massimo Valducci
who comes from Shrewsbury (a small town near Rome).
Mass is our sub-editor -- a technical term for someone
who corrects all Gary Penn’s spelling mistakes . . .
But
there are bigger personnel changes afoot for ZZAP! because
this is my last issue as Editor of the magazine. CRASH
readers called me 'traitor Kean' for swapping allegience
from the Spectrum to the Commodore, but ZZAP! readers
need not have the same feelings for where I go next
is not another machine. At Christmas Newsfield Publications
launch their fourth title. It's simply called L
M, and yes, you're right -- Lloyd Mangram has
been persuaded to rent out his initials! I'm editing
L M and Lloyd will be doing his infamous bit
on the letters pages. What’s the new mag about, well
you'll find when you get your Christmas Special edition
of ZZAP! because a free first issue of L M will
be included for you to have a look at. What I can say
is that it's a new idea in youth magazines, aimed at
people like you, with a lively interest in all sorts
of things. You'll be hearing more . . .
So,
as from issue 18, the new Editor of ZZAP! will be Gary
Penn. In eighteen months, Gary has gone from a tyro
who signed his name with an X to one of the most professional
writers in computer journalism -- quite a remarkable
achievement! Apart from murdering the odd pet person,
his record with ZZAP! has been exemplary, and certainly
for the past six issues he has been responsible for
arranging all of the month’s contents. I feel I can
leave ZZAP! very safety In his capable hands -- maybe
now he'll even smile occasionally . . .
For
the last time then . . .
Roger
Kean . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
Change at ZZAP! Towers (Issue 16) |
Aug
1986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
month sees an interesting developement and a move. The
Good News is that Gary Liddon -- no, sorry, that's the
Bad News. Okay. Bad News first -- the Bad News is that
Gary Liddon is leaving ZZAP! He hasn't resigned and
(surprise, surprise) he hasn't been sacked. The fact
is he's been compromised by being appointed Technical
Excutive of a new software house which means ZZAP! can
no longer use his services in the game reviewing department.
The
software house concerned is called THALAMUS,
and the Good News is that Thalamus has been founded,
and is backed by Newsfield. (In case you don't know,
the thalamus is a little gland which sits at the base
of the brain above the spinal cord and transmits/receives
all the signals to and from the body -- but enough of
the grisly biological bits). Thalamus is independant
of Newsfield and the magazines ZZAP!64, CRASH and AMTIX!
and is situated in a tasteful corner of what the fashionable
call Islington in North London, but what genuine Islington
dwellers call 'Cannonbury'. The new company is headed
up by Andrew Wright who joins the software house
from Activision where he was Press Officer. Andrew has
often appeared on the pages of ZZAP! in one guise or
another and with his famous flathead (he was
one of the first) and trendy dressing, is what the press
like to call 'a well known software personality'. He's
a welcome if rather raucus addition to the Thalamus
team.
Already,
I'm told, several programs are in preparation for a
September launch of software on both Commodore 64 and
Spectrum, with games for the Amstrad to follow.
But
what of Liddon? Well he's written his own valete
(Latin for Good Bye, Lloyd Mangram tells me), which
appears in Shadow Spiel, but of course this is terribly
improper, and because he's such a modest fellow really,
it falls to me to say the five hankie tear jerker bit.
(gulp) So here goes. . .
Reference:
Liddon, Gareth; age 19 (whatever Minter says)
In the ten months he's been with ZZAP! Gary Liddon
has proved a dilligent, innovative and careful worker.
His integrity, truthfulness and loyalty to the company
has been beyond reproach and I can highly recommend
him to anyone who may wish to employ him in the capacity
of Tea Boy. His one and only drawback is that his propensity
for unique twistings of the English language leads him
into the fantasy that he is a writer. . .
Never
mind, Andrew Wright is determined that the only keyboard
he touches from now on will be that of a computer. We'll
all miss him though, most especially the Comps Minion
for whom Gary has provided so much raw material in the
past, and we wish him luck as he returns to the life
whence he came -- London and the Lounge Lizard society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratings
System (Issue 10) |
Feb
1986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE ZZAP! RATINGS
It's
some time since we carried details on the games review
ratings in ZZAP! Since they were last seen, a host of
new readers have joined us, not least, those from the
Far East and Australia, so it seems an appropriate moment,
at the start of the new software year, to repeat the
vital statistics.
[Follows
same text on the ratings as printed in issue 4 -- see
below]
HOW
TO USE THE RATINGS
Most
importantly, you must realise that ratings are only
a guide, important in the context of the review itself,
but secondary to what is written. Of the ratings, some
are more important than others as a buying consideration.
PRESENTATION is only of moderate importance, for instance,
but you may have your own set of criteria for judging
what we say. The ratings are arrived at with discussion
among the various reviewers, and of course the results
cannot be considered as infalible -- the reviewers are
only human (at least they think so), and sometimes there
is a radical disagreement which inevitably affects the
way the ratings come out.
THE
ZZAP! LABELS
GOLD
MEDAL AWARD: Definitely a game above all others
in the month of review. There may not be a Gold Medal
game every issue, but if there is, get it! Just occasionally
there may be more than one . . .
SIZZLER:
Hot
games of the month -- must normally score around 90%.
We reckon any ZZAP! Sizzler is a great buy, unless you
really hate that particular type of game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two
New Reviewers (Issue 7) |
Nov
1985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW
ZZAPPERS
A
couple of new faces are appearing for the first time
in this issue of ZZAP! Sean Masterson joins the
team to look after matters strategical in future, and
brings with him the experience from working for Games
Workshop and writing for White Dwarf magazine
and the sadly defunct Imagine magazine. Sean
can write those inscrutable role playing games that
list thousands of technical attributes for freaks of
the genre. He'll also be adding his little cartoon face
to the main reviews where his strategical bent is useful.
Gary
Liddon used to write for Big K (but we don't
hold that against him too much), and joins the team
after a spell at Domark. A wiz with the joystick, Gary
admits to enjoying the odd utility or two, has written
a 'sprite sucker' and is a genius at losing cassette
inlay cards so no one can write anything about the games.
These
two will be taking over some of Paul Sumner's review
work, as Paul is off to college now, and will have less
time to get in and see things -- he's opted for being
intelligent rather then simply clever....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zzap!'s
Relocation (Issue 4) |
Aug
1985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since
the last issue there have been a few changes in ZZAP!,
primarily a change in editorship and a change in the
location of the editorial offices. These have been moved
from Yeovil, close to the home of Chris Anderson, up
to Ludlow in Shropshire, the head offices of Newsfield
Limited, the publishers of ZZAP!64 and CRASH Magazine.
Unfortunately, due to personal reasons, Chris Anderson
felt unable to accompany the magazine to its new base.
One of the prime reasons for the move is economy, as
the Ludlow offices have plenty of space to house the
ZZAP! editorial without the extra cost of a second office
elsewhere.
For
reasons similar to those of Chris, Bob Wade also preferred
not to make the move.
This
means that ZZAP! is now being written and edited at
the same place it is designed and published, which gives
us a great deal more flexibility than in the past.
You
will also notice some slight changes within the magazine
itself, and these are detailed below in the various
panels. I hope that you will generally approve of those
alterations we have made, or at the worst, at least
accept that they have been made for very good reasons.
Roger
Kean . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zzap's
New Reviewer (Issue 4)
|
Aug
1985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW REVIEWER
With Bob Wade leaving, we were left with a gap
in the ZZAP! reviewing team, but fortunately this was
almost immediately filled by this month's contestant
in the ZZAP! Challenge, 19 year old Paul Sumner.
For how he fared against the egregious Julian Rignall,
you'll just have to turn to the Challenge pages!
Paul
is almost a local, hailing from the town of Much Wenlock
in Shropshire, having moved there a year ago from Dunstable
(not all that far from Berkhampstead, ex-hang out of
Gary Penn, now spinster of Ludlow parish (there's
no 'p' in Berko, so stop taking it -- GP).
Paul
hates pot noodles (bad news for the Rignall breakfasts),
likes Abba and the Osmonds (he's something of an historian),
but fortunately he has two right hands when it comes
to the joystick (not unlike his predecessor, Bob Wade,
who must have been glad to get it off his chest) which
makes him a right handy guy to have on the team. His
taste in games is fairly catholic (despite being C of
E), but he hates Boulderdash and feels that ZZAP!'s
Sizzler On-Court Tennis was way out -- out of
court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes
in Ratings System (Issue 4) |
Aug
1985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE ZZAP! RATINGS
Two
things have changed with the review ratings. One is
purely graphical; as you'll see the ratings bars have
gone. After canvassing opinion and from the views expressed
in some letters, it appears that many people do not
relate the length of the black bar to the rating percentage.
The bars have also created havoc in laying out the reviews
in the art department because of the time they take
to do.
The
second change is that the 'Originality' rating has gone
and 'Value for Money' has become a sub-rating, with
the creation of a new one called 'Overall' to complete
the review. Originality is a difficult element within
a game to rate sensibly, and in many cases is fairly
irrelevant. Where a lack of originality is a serious
drawback in a game, this should be adequately reflected
in the reviewers' comments. The change around the Value
for Money has been made because Messrs Rignall and Penn
felt strongly that rating a game under the heading of
Value For Money doesn't necessarily reflect their general
feelings on the game.
PRESENTATION:
Packaging, printed instructions, on-screen instructions,
loading, play options, program facilities (including
things like ease of joystick or keyboard control), on-screen
impression -- everything except the game itself.
GRAPHICS:
Variety,
detail and effectiveness of screen pictures, quality
of animation, smoothness of movement.
SOUND:
Variety
and effectiveness of sound effects, quality, both technically
and aesthetically, of music. Also: does the sound annoy?
HOOKABILITY:
How
strongly does the game make you want to play it and
keep playing it?
LASTABILITY:
How
long will it keep its hold on you?
VALUE
FOR MONEY:
Takes into account the price plus all the above ratings.
OVERALL:
With all the above ratings in, this is IT! -- what the
reviewers think in general.
The
ZZAP! Labels
The
three labels so far used in ZZAP! remain unchanged.
GOLD
MEDAL AWARD: Definitely a game above all others
in the month of review. There may not be a Gold Medal
game every issue, but if there is, get it! Just occasionally
there may be two . . .
SIZZLER:
Hot
games of the month -- must normally score around 90%.
We reckon any ZZAP! Sizzler is a great buy, unless you
really hate that particular type of game.
TACKY:
In
our view, a second-rate piece of software. Steer well
clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
ZZAP! Reviewers (Issue 2) |
Jun
1985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Zzap Reviewers
BOB
WADE: Zzap's 20-year-old software editor. Bought
a BBC, but then decided he wanted a machine you could
have FUN on. Supports Wimbledon football club, otherwise
fully sane. Loves Boulder Dash.
GARY
PENN: Aged
19, born and bred in Berkhamstead, reckons to have played
just about every single 64 title ever released. Loves
drawing cartoons. Gets recognised walking about town.
JULIAN
RIGNALL: Wasted
his youth and money in the arcades instead of at school,
but passed six A levels in tactics on Defender.
20-year-old former Atari owner who's seen the light.
Eats pot noodles for breakfast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratings
System (Issue 2) |
Jun
1985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Zzap Ratings
PRESENTATION:
Packaging, instructions, loading, play options,
program facilities, on-screen impression -- everything
except the game itself.
GRAPHICS:
Variety,
detail and effectiveness of screen pictures, quality
of animation, smoothness of movement.
SOUND:
Variety
and effectiveness of sound effects, quality of music.
Also: does the sound annoy?
ORIGINALITY:
How
similar is this to programs already available on the
64?
HOOKABILITY:
How
strongly does the game make you want to keep playing?
LASTABILITY:
How
long will it keep its hold on you?
VALUE
FOR MONEY:
Takes into account the price plus all the above ratings,
especially the last two.
The
Zzap Labels
GOLD
MEDAL AWARD: Our biggest rave of the month. Get
it!
SIZZLER:
We
think it's very hot indeed -- normally must score 80%
or more in value for money. We reckon any Zzap sizzler
is a great buy, unless you really hate that particular
type of game.
TACKY:
In
our view, a lousy piece of software. Steer well clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zzap!'s Creation (Issue 1) |
May 1985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How
Zzap was born
Like
most living things, Zzap! 64 has parents. Its Ma and
Pa are the magazines Crash and Personal Computer Games.
Er, respectively.
It
was Ma who started it off. Crash had had an incredible
impact on the Spectrum games industry during 1984 and
sold every month like hot cakes. So it was natural that
the guys behind it would want to try to do the same
for the 64.
Late in the year they printed an enticing ad: Editor
wanted. It was spotted by PCG's editor, Chris Anderson,
who adored working on PCG, except it meant commuting
to London. From Somerset.
The
people at Crash were amused to receive his application,
since it was he who had started a slanging match with
Crash at the start of the year with an unfortunate gossip
item in PCG.
As
a punishment they ordered him to start work immediately
on the new magazine. Thus it was that a draughty, tumble-down,
upstairs hideaway in an anonymous Somerset town became
the new editorial office of Zzap! 64.
Finding
staff to fill it was made easier by a sad, out-of-the-blue
announcement from the publishers of PCG. The magazine's
financial prospects for 1985 were said to be poor. It
had to close.
One
of those put out of a job was reviewer Bob Wade.
He agreed to get on his bike and move West, becoming
the Zzap software editor. PCG's White Wizard
also agreed to divert his outpourings on the adventure
scene into the new channel.
The
other two main writers on Zzap were selected for their
game-playing experience and expertise. Gary Penn
had played just about every game ever released on the
64 and had a personal collection of several hundred
titles. Julian Rignall was the Computer and Video
Games arcade champion of 1983, and the nation's top
scorer on Defender. Both were among the five
finalists in the PCG competition to find Britain's meanest
player.
The
team was assembled, the games played, the words written,
the issue produced. Now let it be read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review
Policy (Issue 1) |
May 1985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Zzap reviewing system
It
won't take you long to notice that a large part of Zzap
is taken up with reviews of new 64 games. Game reviews
are hopeless unless they really do provide a RELIABLE
guide to buying games. We've therefore put considerable
effort into planning what we believe is the best reviewing
system anywhere.
Here are the key points:
1.
Every game is played by THREE people. This is really
the only way of avoiding inaccurate reviews caused by
a single person's quirky tastes.
2.
Every game is played EXTENSIVELY. The Zzap reviewers
are games fanatics who don't know the meaning of the
term 'office hours'. Indeed, on a couple of occasions
police officers have called at the office to see why
the lights were on after midnight! We just say: 'Sorry
officer, but to review this game fairly we just have
to reach the final screen.'
3.
The SAME three reviewers play every game. The advantage
of this is that comparisons between the games can be
fairly and consistently made.
4.
Enormous care is taken over the RATINGS. All three reviewers
give their own ratings, and then we argue. A lot. The
final ratings aren't a strict average of the three initial
ratings, more a sort of compromise reached at the end
of the argument/ Obviously plenty of people will still
disagree with our ratings, but at least we're ready
with a detailed defense!
5.
Our OPINIONS on the game are stated clearly. Some magazines
are forced to devote what little space they have for
reviews to simply describing a game. We think you also
want a clear opinion on it. That's why on each review
you'll find comments printed in speech bubbles linked
to each reviewer. In some cases our reviewers disagree,
and this will be reflected in the printed comments.
Where there's more than one opinion on a game, you should
know about it!
6.
We try to make most possible use of SCREEN CAPTURES,
not just to show you the game's graphics, but also to
explain what's on screen. That's why you'll find detailed
captions on many screen shots.
But
finally, it must be stressed again that nothing can
remove the element of personal taste from the appreciation
of a game. No matter how much care we take, it's still
possible you won't agree. It's just less likely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratings
System (Issue 1) |
May
1985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Zzap ratings
Ratings
are probably the most studied part of a review. We've
adopted what may at first seem a strange system, but
we think you'll get to like it.
Firstly,
like our system magazine Crash, all ratings are marked
as percentages. The advantage of this is one of extra
flexibility and precision. There is a real difference
between a rating of 86% and 94% - If we were marking
out of 10, both would have to be rounded to 9. Certainly
it would be impossible to resolve some of our arguments
over ratings if we didn't have individual percentage
points to play around with.
As
to the ratings themselves, we've settled on seven different
labels which we think cover all of a game's good and
bad points.
PRESENTATION.
This is the woolliest. Basically it covers all aspects
of a program other than the actual game itself. For
example:
- the way the game is packaged. Does it impress you
right from when you first pick it up?
- the quality of the printed instructions. Some games
offer a superbly-printed booklet packed with all you
need to know. Others leave you in the dark, or even
worse, mislead you.
-
the way the game loads. Is it fast and reliable? Is
there a good loading screen?
-
the way the program is presented on screen. This is
the most important factor. Is there an appealing introductory
sequence? Is the player offered enough playing options?
Is there a two-player game? A high-score feature? Are
there any annoying enforced delays between games? Is
the overall FEEL of the program slick or shoddy?
GRAPHICS.
Fairly straightforward. How impressive are the pictures
on screen? Are they large? Colourful? Detailed? Original?
Is the animation good? Is movement smooth? How much
variety is there to the graphics? Note: only some of
these points can be judged by looking at a screen photograph.
SOUND.
Again, straightforward. Is the sound impressive, exciting,
effective, varied? Or is it simple, uninteresting, annoying,
repetitive? Is there good multi-channel music? Is there
effective speech?
ORIGINALITY.
Controversial, this one, since a game can be very good
without being original. Indeed there are some games
where originality is very hard to award, in particular
where you have a conversion from the arcades or another
micro by the company licensed to make the conversion.
However,
we think it is still a crucial rating, because there
are many games whose originality is what makes them
(or vice versa).
We
shall use the term to mean this: how similar is this
game to titles already available on the 64? In other
words a company which makes a brilliantly original game
on another computer and then converts it to the 64 some
months later, will still get a high originality rating
for the game.
Bear
in mind also that what makes a game original is not
so much an original scenario, but an original approach
to gameplay itself.
HOOKABILITY.
This word has been invented by us because we couldn't
find another one which said what we wanted to convey.
It's kind of a cross between 'playability', 'addictiveness',
and 'game-feel'. When awarding it we ask:
- How difficult is the game to get into?
-
How strongly does it grab you?
-
How good does the control feel?
-
Is the action fun, attractive, compulsive?
-
How much do you want to keep playing?
Clearly
this is a key rating. A low Hookability rating means
either that the game isn't addictive, or that it just
takes ages to get into.
LASTABILITY.
Another key rating. This one measures the depth
of a game. How many screens are there? How many playing
levels? How much long-term challenge? Will you still
be playing it a month after buying it?
Clearly
the rating also has to take into account the Hookability
rating. Here are some examples:
-
A game with a thousand screens but which is completely
unaddictive scores low on both hookability and lastability.
(If it's not addictive you won't keep playing it.)
-
A game which is difficult to get into, but has plenty
of depth and interest once you're into it could score
low on Hookability and high on Lastability.
-
A game which is incredibly compulsive but only has two
screens to solve could score high on Hookability and
low on Lastability.
VALUE
FOR MONEY. This rating takes into account all
the other ratings and also the price of the game. It
is not just an average since some ratings are more important
than others. It represents our overall conclusion on
how good a buy a particular game is.
|
|
Htmlized
by Dimitris
Kiminas:
Issue 1 material added 11 February 2001.
Issue 2 material added 12 August 2001.
Issue 4 material added 6 May 2002.
Issue 7 material added 26 July 2003.
Issue 10 material added 29 Aug 2004.
Issue 16 and 17 material added 18 Mar 2007.
"Games
of the Week!"
Home
|
|
|
|