ZZOOM
(Imagine)

Zzoom is one of the games that was B.C. (Before CRASH). It is exactly one year old now, and was the most wanted game of the August ZX Microfair last year.

Zzoom, being a fairly old game, has held its own in the market well, probably due to its good 3D graphics. They’re pleasing and realistic, especially the way that the clouds move at different speeds depending on how close or far away they are from the player’s view. Action is compelling and continuous, if not even tiring (it’s hard work flying). The enemy aircraft ‘zzoom’ very realistically towards you. Overall, it’s stood the test of time very well and can still be recommended as a great air to air/land and sea conflict.
MU

I remember Zzoom being reviewed well because of the graphics, which were some of the best looking 3D at the time. I particularly liked the screen layout and fresh use of colour. As it’s a pretty fast game, the periodic ‘breathers’ between bouts of action are quite welcome. Has it stood up well? Yes, I think so, because it is very playable and yet hard enough to be interesting and a challenge. It’s one of those games that’s certainly worth dusting off and putting on the computer again. With Imagine going down the pan, some of their games may enjoy a curiosity revival.
LM

(Matthew) It never had CRASH ratings of course, but graphically its realism would still give it a fairly high rating from me, say 72%. When you’re playing it you want to keep on, so it’s fairly addictive, but to want to come back to it another day — that might be a bit different. I think I’d give its addictive qualities about 69/70%.

(Lloyd) I’ve enjoyed playing it again and against current competition I think I’d give it 75% for addictivity, and about the same for graphics.

COOKIE
Ultimate

Cookie, along with Tranz-Am was the second batch of releases from Ultimate. Of the two, perhaps Tranz-Am was the more popular, possibly because in some respects Cookie resembled Psst, and oddly Psst wasn’t quite as popular as Jetpac had been.

This game was never really heavily pushed. Why? I don't know, because I think it’s a great game and probably the most difficult to master out of the entire Ultimate range. The graphics are well up to today’s standard and the game is very playable still, although some of its original addictive qualities are let down due to its dramatic increase in difficulty with each stage. Nevertheless, I would recommend this game highly. Good value and plenty of unique touches.
MU

I liked Psst, in fact it was one of my favourite games. Cookie I found much more difficult to master, and playing it again — nothing’s changed! I think I would agree that it is probably one of the most, if not the most, difficult of Ultimate's games, and it has been grossly underrated. To judge it by today’s games is no problem, it certainly equals anything available. The graphics are detailed, amusing and fast. The game content is very high, and I always admired the idea that objects first have to be ‘stunned’ so that when hit for a second time they can be directed in the direction you want. This makes ‘zapping’ into a quite complex art. Yes, I think Cookie would be a fine buy for anyone who hasn’t already got it, and is wondering why all the recent releases have been boring. Sometimes, it pays to look over your shoulders!
LM

(Matthew) Cookie is a game that demands a lot of skill, timing and patience, so I’d give it 79% for playability today; it has a high level of addictivity if you’ve got the time and patience! About 72%. The graphics are great, very original and colourful. I’d give them 83%.

(Lloyd) I would go higher on playability, the game is great fun to play, and I agree with the other ratings. I think if Cookie were to come out now, this month, it would do very well on ratings overall.

ALCHEMIST
(Imagine)

In issue 2 we said that Alchemist was Imagine’s first step into the mist-shrouded world of terror and mystery. Perhaps overstating it somewhat! Alchemist, however, was Imagine’s first attempt at anything with adventure overtones in an otherwise arcade style game.

Alchemist does have some Imaginative graphics, although I can’t agree with the review, ‘exceptional graphics... excellent graphics’. They are quite old looking and don’t move very easily about the screen. The keyboard layout is poor. Overall this game comes nowhere near Atic Atac, as mentioned in the original review. The castle which seemed massive on first playing has dwindled down to just a dozen separate rooms. I think it was overrated.
MU

I don't entirely agree about the graphics. They are quite original, certainly very detailed. If they move awkwardly it is more because of their size and inertia which has been added. On the other hand I do think Alchemist lacks a lot in playability because of the content, which isn't very high. It’s an easily completed game and unlike Atic Atac doesn’t have sufficient arcade interest once completed to keep you having another go.
LM

Use of Computer	80%
Graphics	85%
Playability	90%
Getting Started	68%
Addictive Qualities	89%
Value For Money	95%
Overall	85%

(Matthew) The 80% for use of computer doesn’t hold up as far as the keyboard play goes, and I wouldn’t give it more than 69% now. The graphics too, by today’s standard, would have to come down, probably around the 72% mark. As to its addictive qualities, well the original 89% is right out of the window! More like 60% for me.

(Lloyd) I wouldn’t push the graphics down much at all, they still look fine to me. It got 90% for playability, well it’s fun to start with but I think that’s over the top. It seems to me, looking back on it, that Alchemist was among the first of a generation of games which tried to get definitely away from the shoot em up tradition, so perhaps its ratings were more appropriate then than they are now. Certainly its addictive qualities were rated far too high, I think around the 68% mark now.

SCUBA DIVE
(Durrell)

Scuba Dive certainly got a rave review from CRASH in issue 2 (92% overall) and has remained a popular vote in the HOTLINE ever since. How does it fare now?

Use of computer	89%
Graphics	98%
Playability	90%
Getting started	89%
Addictive qualities	90%
Value for money	98%
Overall	92%

Soon after the arrival of Scuba Dive a few other companies followed suit and produced underwater games. Scuba Dive is still the best one though. I tend to agree with most of the review but the game does tend to get boring, tedious and unaddictive very soon — no lasting appeal for me. Sound and a few more danger scenes could have made this low content game better. However, I wouldn’t tell anyone not to buy it, just that they might be a bit disappointed after a while. I must say, that the animation and drawing of the sea creatures is very well done.
MU

I think I agree with Matthew about the content of Scuba Dive, not that it’s bad in itself, but that the implementation of the game makes for one that is fairly slow after a while. Scuba Dive’s success lies more in the first few plays where the graphics delight and the size of the underwater caverns promises much fun. It isn’t a game of skill in the sense of fast timing and firing accuracy, but swimming skills to take a time to master. Once that’s achieved though, some of the fun does lag. On the whole I would say that if we were reviewing as new today, it would still get a very high rating from me, but less on the addictivity.
LM

(Matthew) I think 89% for use of computer was a little high because controlling your man isn’t as positive as it could be, or as positive as many games since have shown can be the case. The fish etc, are very good, but the caves look a bit uninteresting and the diver is small and not as well done as the fish. I would say the graphics should be 74% now. I never found it great fun to play, just searching around for treasure, so I’d give its addictive qualities and playability about 70%.

(Lloyd) I wouldn’t drop the graphics by anything like as much, perhaps around the 85% mark. I agree on addictivity but would keep the playability figure up more, say around 79%. I think it holds up pretty well.

HARRIER ATTACK
(Durrell)

Durrell’s Harrier Attack was a B.C. game. At the time of its release a number of magazine reviews commented on the tastelessness of a game which sends Harriers into strafe and bomb an island town in the wake of the Falklands Conflict. Well, that’s as may be, but it seems a rather pointless criticism to level at a game which is firmly in the tradition of computer games — knock hell out of the enemy!

This game is fun to play. I have to say that this is the first time I’ve played it, so it really is like a new game review for me. I think the various skill levels play a major role in its addictive qualities. Graphically it is quite primitive by today’s smooth standards, but by no means does this interfere with a great game. Colour has been used realistically and wisely. I can’t really fault it at all as a simple shoot em up except that I wish Durrell would update some of the graphic features, such as increasing the size of the playing characters, and perhaps adding a bit more sound. Overall it has stood up very well.
MU

I remember first off being struck by the nice effect of the sun glinting on the waves of the sea and thinking that because of the more solid looking graphics it was more fun to play than say Penetrator, which it resembles. But after a few plays I realised that there is less fun here than in Penetrator, which isn’t to say that Harrier Attack is boring, but I do think it lacks content. Having taken off, bombed, landed, there isn’t much more to do except improve the old hi-score. The game still looks quite good by today’s standards although the landscape scrolling is a bit jerky. In its day, Harrier Attack was one of the new generation of somewhat better looking shoot em ups, and that was its strength. Spectrum programming has overtaken its look now.
LM

(Matthew) Although the control keys are the cursors, you only really need up and down for the most part, and they are responsive, so I’d give use of computer 73%. Graphics, oh, about 70%, and playability 71% — it’s quite good fun. Addictivity a little lower, high sixties I think.

(Lloyd) I wouldn’t go quite so high today as I would have a year ago. Graphics, yes, not bad, around the 68-70% mark, playability about 68%, but its addictive qualities drop off rapidly. Once you’ve landed you don’t want to bother again somehow, only 60% — medium addictive.

WHEELIE
(Microsphere)

Wheelie got the best overall percentage in CRASH issue 2 — 93%. In fact that makes it one of the highest scoring games in any issue of CRASH. Even now, it is fighting it out in the top five of the HOTLINE chart and has been successful in most popular sales charts as well. What do we think today?

All I can say is that Wheelie is still the same compulsive, addictive game that it ever was. Nobody has tried yet to copy this game because it cannot be bettered. This game is so panicky, I just can’t put it down. All the features are well structured to test the skill of the player and develop those skills in preparation for the final race against the biker. The graphics are so realistic, especially the crashes, but also the way in which the speed of the bike relates to hazards. They just haven’t been improved upon by anyone yet.
MU

Wheelie was a highly original game when it came out, and looking at it now, one can only say that it is still original because no one has done anything like it. I rather doubt that any other version would be better anyway. I don’t know yet what the Eddie Kidd game from Martech will be like, but if it’s anything like Wheelie it will have to be really good to be better.
LM

Use of Computer	89%
Graphics	86%
Playability	90%
Getting Started	95%
Addictive Qualities	99%
Value For Money	99%
Overall	93%

(Matthew) I think the graphics are marvellous and I would want the rating to go up from 86% to 90%. I’m tempted to put up the playability (90%) a percent as well, as for addictive qualities (which were 99%) I’m only disappointed they weren’t lower so I could put that up too!

(Lloyd) Wheelie seems like a good wine, put it down and when you open the bottle it tastes even better than when it was new. I agree with Matthew — a real curve of a game.

FIGHTER PILOT
(Digital Integration)

Fighter Pilot was the first offering from Digital Integration, a software house which has established itself very firmly with this and its second game, Night Gunner. We gave Fighter Pilot an overall rating of 86%, and said that it was definitely the best simulation for the Spectrum yet. Is it still?

Use of Computer	82%
Graphics	90%
Playability	85%
Getting Started	90%
Addictive Qualities	85%
Value For Money	85%
Overall	86%

Yes it is! Undoubtedly the best flying simulation for the Spectrum as far as I’m concerned, and it will remain at the top for a long time to come, I’m sure. Nothing I can see about the review needs commenting on — game and review stand up well to the test of time! After playing so many games and mastering them, this one still remains unmastered by me — perhaps if I played non-stop for two weeks I might be able to fly this high performance fighter well. The ultimate simulation for the Spectrum.
MU

Attention to detail, especially in simulations, is bound to make a game playable, and Fighter Pilot hasn’t really been bettered on that count. Everything works and combines to make this a very real experience of flying. There’s the possibility that someone, maybe Digital Integration themselves, will come up with a similar program that actually creates a detailed ground effect, but until that does happen I think the original review’s comments about being the best still stand.
LM

(Matthew) In general I wouldn’t alter any of the original ratings. At 85% for playability, it rather depends on whether or not you are daunted by the prospect of learning to fly the plane, and I can see some people (like me!) being put off— but the feeling of getting the hang of flying is great fun.

(Lloyd) No, I wouldn’t argue with the ratings either. In fact, I might be tempted to put value for money up slightly (85%) because this program offers loads of possibilities for enjoyment if you like simulations.

OMEGA RUN
(C.R.L.)

We said of Omega Run (issue 2, 87% overall) that it hovered between being a flight simulation and a straightforward game. Since then a number of flight simulations have appeared and Omega Run tends to look more like a game than a simulation, with, oddly, more similarity to Zzoom than anything.

The instructions are of a high standard, each item being very carefully explained. The idea behind it is still quite good although, looking back, it seems to lack a fair amount of content and variation, meaning its addictive qualities have dropped in comparison to later games. It’s a shame the 3D effects couldn’t have been improved, like a moving landscape. The graphics stand up as fairly detailed, but there aren’t all that many of them. It’s still playable when you get it out again, but doesn’t have much of an addictive quality.
MU

I thought Omega Run was a lot of fun when I first played it, although not so addictive as to keep me trying. I saw the Commodore version not long ago, expecting a vast graphic improvement, but it looked very similar, no attribute problems of course. Getting the Spectrum version out for a re-run, I left it feeling somewhat unimpressed because it does lack content, there’s too much twisting and turning to shoot enemy planes down, and little else.
LM

Use of Computer	78%
Graphics	90%
Playability	83%
Getting Started	96%
Addictive Qualities	82%
Value For Money	90%
Overall	87%

(Matthew) It got 90% for graphics — no way! There aren’t many graphics, and there really isn’t any proper attempt at 3D as in later games. No, that would have to go down to about 59% now. I’d also drop the playability rating (it got 83%) to about 63%. It’s addictive qualities were overrated too, not 82% anyway, more like 60%.

(Lloyd) Well I’d go along with most of that. I don’t think Omega Run has exactly stood the test of time as well as other similar flying games.

ANDROID 2
(Vortex)

Android 2, a follow up (no surprise) to Android 1, was a CRASH SMASH in issue 2 getting 90% overall. How’s it stood up?

Use of Computer	80%
Graphics	96%
Playability	92%
Getting Started	90%
Addictive Qualities	90%
Value For Money	89%
Overall	90%

The 3D effect on Android 2 works very well and is still one of the leading 3D maze style games. It’s attractive, colourful and boasts good animation. Playing it today, it’s still difficult which in a sense makes it challenging. In the original review, one of the bits used was mine, I said that this was a good game in itself with great graphics like Ant Attack, but a better playing game than Ant Attack. I haven’t changed my mind! The demo and instructions are some of the best seen.
MU

Considering the difficulty of getting through the very complex maze with all its hazards, this is still a very playable game with plenty of challenge and a lively, full, colourful screen. I always liked the graphics and the 3D effect and no one has really challenged Android 2, in my opinion, if one is looking at maze type games. In truth, I don’t think it has dated at all.
LM

(Matthew) I’d drop the graphics by 10% down to 86%, playability down 13% to 89% and addictive qualities down to 70%.

(Lloyd) I disagree! I wouldn’t drop the graphics a bit, nor the playability because I think this is still enormous fun to play. However, it is hard to get through, which might lower its addictivity a mite, say down to 85% from the original 90%. For my money this is still a game which, if it came out today, one would buy and enjoy as entirely up-to-date.

Search for more information

• Alchemist
• Android 2
• Cookie
• Fighter Pilot
• Harrier Attack
• Omega Run
• Scuba Dive
• Wheelie
• Zzoom