ZX99

Your Sinclair

Technical Ingenuity 85%

Achievement 90%

Crap Factor 9%

Fun 72%

Overall 71%

Rich Pelley 71%

OH NO, IT'S THE AWESOME ATTACK OF THE... YS READER'S GAMES Here at YS, we've recently been engulfed by an astounding number* of games that you, our lovely readers, have written and (if that wasn't disaster enough) sent in for our perusal. (Presumably so we could laugh at them as well. Ho ho, just joking.) Well, as you can probably imagine, at first we tried to ignore them but soon they were flooding in so fast that we just couldn't hold out any longer. So here, as a last resort (and we do mean last), is RICH PELLEY, who we've chained to a desk, and forced to play through your fine offerings to give us his 'expert' opinion. Take it away, Rich... (but don 't say we didn't warn you). *Nine, actually. Firstly, I'd like to say how impressed I've been with the standard of games you've sent in. But unfortunately I can't - 'cos they're all crap (hem). No, maybe that's a bit unfair. I was vaguely impressed with some (well, one actually). But the majority were crap, as you're about to see. But before I get down to some serious slagging, perhaps you'd like to know (though I doubt it) how the professionals do their stuff. Y'see writing a decent game ain't quite as easy as you may think. At a proper software 'house' (presumably a 'house' because they all live there or something) you have quite a few people working on the same game at once, all doing different bits and bobs. First, you'll find someone writing the code (the actual game) in machine code, probably using an assembler - all of which is very complicated and means you have to be extremely brainy to know what's going on. Of course, he won't be using a Speccy (seeing as it's terminally crap at this sort of thing), so a far more impressive computer which costs loads more and has lots more keys (and maybe even a pretty light if he's lucky) will be adopted instead, such as an ST. Basically this serves exactly the same purpose as our rubber-keyed chum, except that it's a little bit more user-friendly ('cos there's loads more memory) and far, far more importantly, it looks a lot more flash. As well as this, another arty-farty bloke (or indeed woman) will 'do' the graphics, whilst yet another writes a little ditty using lots of keyboards, funny black boxes and pretty lights (which is later ported into the Speccy). And, would you believe, it all costs rather a lot of money. Overall, I'd say (but don't take my word for it) that it takes around four months for everyone working full-time to write a game from start from finish - and some of them are still pretty naff after all that. But why on earth am I telling you all this, you may well be asking. Good question. Why did I tell you that? Erm... Ah yes. Well, now you can see what you're up against when you try to write a game yourself. I mean, I'm sure that someone cramped up in a decaying bedroom with a cold cup of coffee in one hand and a copy of Playboy in the other (well, that's how I do it, anyway), frantically trying to write a game won't get very far, if you see what I mean. Which all goes to show, um, something or other. So there you go. Now you know. 'ELLO, JOHN, GORRA NEW MOTOR? Still reading? Oh, good. Whilst sifting through the piles of games and things you've sent in I've (sort of) dropped them into three different categories. And here they are... First, there are the ones that are crap on purpose. Y'know the sort of thing - Advanced Yoghurt Carton Simulator and the like. Then there are the ones which are meant to be taken seriously, but are crap all the same. And lastly, well, there are the ones which really aren't too bad. (Take YS Capers, for instance, which we featured on the Smash Tape last issue - a game written at home by a YS reader for a bit of fun and sent in to us just like all these other games, the only difference being that Damian Scattergood is, of course, a professional programmer on the quiet, so he was pretty well sussed up). Not that any of this is at all relevant, of course. I just thought I'd stick it in so you'd think I knew what I was doing here. THE SCORES ON THE DOORS The usual scoring system seems a tad inappropriate here (seeing as it doesn't go below one'), so instead we've adopted a brand new one instead (ie I've just made it up). TECHNICAL INGENUITY Or 'How clever is the programmer?' Does the game boast wacky graphical routines, winy sound and decent playability? Or, erm, doesn't it? ACHIEVEMENT Did the prog achieve what it set out to do? Did it do a perfect job, or come a right old cropper in the process? FUN Is the game a laugh to watch and fun to play, or is it as boring as something that really is a bit on the boring side? CRAP FACTOR Erm, yes... Nuff said. OVERALL The overall mark is a sort of idea about how far the game would get if it was released at full price on a proper label - so it may get an extremely low mark even if I thought it was really good. If you see what I mean. Okay? (Just don't get hurt if I'm a bit nasty about your pride and joy - it doesn't make you a bad person or anything!) ZX99 By Richard Mark Bacon At last - a proper game to review. This one's been written with that 3D Game Maker thingy by CRL, and quite a corker it is too. In fact, it's so good I really can't find any way to slag it off at all. Damn... Here's the scenario. The year is 1999 and Uncle Clive's been brought out of retirement to design a new computer, the ZX99, which is now being utilised to control the Earth's new space defence bases. But in the tradition of Speccies all over the world, it has, surprise, surprise, gone wrong (probably because somebody wobbled the power pack or something). Tch! What to do, eh, viewers? But, wait, that's not all - it's also planning a laser attack on green and beautiful Mother Earth. Eek! And only one man can save us. Unfortunately he's not available so we'll have to settle for Rick Hero instead - a cutesy little robot-type thingy who bears a uncanny resemblance to Zebedee from The Magic Roundabout. Well, enough of that. As I've already said, ZX99 was done on 3D Game Maker, which, if I remember correctly, was rather user un-friendly overall (ie a bit crap to be honest). But Mr Bacon has certainly done quite an admirable job, taking into account the strict limitations he was faced with - graphics are nice 'n' cute and the playing area's pretty large (the idea being to get from one side of the circular space station to the other and destroy the computer). So full marks to him. And full marks to you at home as well if you got that question right - we'll be back after the break so dooon't go away…

Mmm. Suppose I'd better jump over those cubes and bounce all over the balls. Erm... boing boing.

Well, what an excruciatingly brilliant feature that was, if I do say so myself - so good, in fact, that we'll have to do it again sometime. So if you've written a game or something (preferably not another one of those pesky lawnmower simulators though, and not just some utility or display - send them to JD's Prog Pitstop instead) and you're ready for some constructive criticism (ie a right slagging-off), then send it to me, Rich Pelley, at the Crap Game Corner, Your Sinclair, [redacted]. And no doubt it'll appear in the hallowed pages of a future issue of this fine publication. Byeee!!!