Little bugs in the database 4

[Rorthron]

The presentation of 2000AD licences is inconsistent. They are usually attributed to 2000AD, except Nemesis the Warlock, which is attributed to IPC.

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/3 ... he_Warlock

IPC owns 2000AD, so is probably the more accurate owner, though the 2000AD label is perhaps more useful. Either way, they should be consistent.

✓ Reviewed

[8BitAG]

This game...
Warlord/Wartorn
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/1 ... m/War-Lord

was written by Jonathan Scott...
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/list?label_id=7439

✓ Reviewed

[Frankie]

Sea War (Panda Software, 1982)

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/4 ... um/Sea_War

It says its genre is Strategy Game: War, and Multi-turn type: Turn-based.

I think it's clearly an arcade/shooter game.

Think I need to do a scan of my inlay, as that is white, and not blue

[dfzx]

The entry for The Hobbit:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/6 ... The_Hobbit

should contain a reference to co-author Veronika Megler's 2014 paper on her part in writing it. The Internet Archive has a link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200607083 ... 0/vmegler/

The original link (to unimelb.edu.au) has been offline quite a while, so may have died. There's another link to the original PDF paper here:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4fea/f ... 3e09ec.pdf

✓ Reviewed

[StooB]

Just Imagine

Original publisher should be R&R Software Ltd (UK) who were reported to be releasing it in Crash November 1984 but then went into receivership in January 1985.

The Pirate Software version has a release date of 1986 for the tap, 1987 for the tzx and 'Unknown' in the release table. All of these should be 1988 as that's the date on the inlay.

✓ Reviewed

[Alessandro]

Sofkit 1 is filed as 16K only. The program came in two versions on a single tape instead, one for the 16K and one for the 48K.

It should then be filed as 16K/48K (separate programs).

✓ Reviewed

[StooB]

JetPac81 (1982)

Jetpac was released in April 1983, so this could not have been released in 1982.
http://www.fruitcake.plus.com/Sinclair/ ... itions.htm gives a date of 1983.

✓ Reviewed

[Alessandro]

Prepare for something really bizarre

The entry for Light Force contains a curious remark:

What the hell is that voting in the Crash Readers Awards for 1987 all about. As far as I remember, Lightforce didn't have any music and secondly it was released in 1986.

However if you take a look at Crash #38, March 1987, page 35, Light Force wasn't even nominated for best music - the winner was Ping Pong instead, as it is also remarked in its entry.

The "released in 1986" remark is also questionable, since annual awards are normally bestowed on products released the previous year. All titles awarded were released in 1986 in fact. Moreover, the article was most probably written around January of the same year.

But this is only the beginning. The Light Force ZXSR remarks section contains many errors. Some entries are duplicated, others are just plain wrong. The game was not only mentioned as the winner of also the second place in the Best Music award (!), but there are two entries for the 3rd place in the Best Advertising category - where Light Force, again, wasn't even nominated.

There is also a duplicated remark about a "Best Inlay" award which is nowhere to be found in the article (!!!)

Here is an image showing all duplicate and erroneous ZXSR remarks.



Probably they were added by different people and in different times, without any care about inaccurate (to say the least, since some of these remarks are based on nothing but thin air) and/or duplicated entries.

My suggestion is to delete all of the duplicate and erroneous remarks, and as a consequence that "comment" at the end as well.

Side note: shouldn't Lightforce be added as an alternative title, since it is spelled that way in the game's tape inlay?

[Stu]

My suggestion is to delete all of the duplicate and erroneous remarks, and as a consequence that "comment" at the end as well.

The SU password is correct and relevant, although it might also be worth adding a comment to Great Eight 7 along the lines of "Light Force password: MISER".

[Alessandro]

[mention]Stu[/mention] I wasn't referring to the remark about the password of the SU cover tape (which is duplicated anyway), but to the remark I mentioned at the start of my previous post, which is both inaccurate and irrelevant.

[Juan F. Ramirez]

I got some info about the Zafiro/Z-Cobra discussion and I prefer to discuss it here rather than in the Quick Search thread, where it comes from.

You can see the explanation at the top of page. According to the database, "Zafiro Software" became "Z Cobra". Therefore the list of "Z Cobra" titles also includes all "Zafiro Software" titles.

I made a search through many Microhobby issues, starting in the earliest, the 1984 ones, where I saw the logo 'Zafi-Chip' as a label of Zafiro Software Division, one of the distributors of UK titles in Spain. No mention of Z-Cobra till the issue 118-120, approx. (1987). In these Z-Cobra ads, below the logo, the company Zafiro Software Division appears. So I had the doubt whether a label (Z-Cobra) followed after the other (Zafi-Chip).

But in MH issue 136, july 1987, we can read the article "Zafiro's new titles" (page 4, up)

https://archive.org/details/microhobby- ... 3/mode/2up

"Zafiro, known company of software distribution in our company, has just released four new and interesting titles.

The first of them, released under the Zafi-Chip label (that is, in which all the a priori most interesting titles for the market are included) is the second part of Bomb Jack [...]

On the other hand, included in the other company label, Cobra, next programs have been released: Streetwise's Kat Trap [...], Advance's Hard Guy [...], Mirro Soft's Terror of the Deep [...]


So according to this info, both labels (Zafi-Chip & Z-Cobra, both of Zafiro Software Division) existed through some time, being the first one focused in higher quality titles than its brother label.

Zafi-Chip seems to be older than Z-Cobra. As I said before, I started to see Z-Cobra ads at the end of 1986, begining of 1987 whereas I've seen Zafi-Chip ads since the born of the magazine (1984).

By the way, for those interested, I used an interesting tool for searching: MHGoogle. It searches through all the Microhobby scanned issues.

[Juan F. Ramirez]

For example, Dynamite Dan II has two spanish re-releases: Zafi-Chip (1986, when it was released both in UK and Spain) and Z- Cobra (1987, as a budget game).

In the game entry, we can see the Z-Cobra inlay and the Zafi-Chip advert.

[Einar Saukas]

Thanks for the information!

Both ACE 2 and Zythum have separate releases for Zafiro (tape without inlay) and Z Cobra (inlay without tape or release date). I guess they actually refer to the same release?

[Juan F. Ramirez]

Thanks for the information!

Both ACE 2 and Zythum have separate releases for Zafiro (tape without inlay) and Z Cobra (inlay without tape or release date). I guess they actually refer to the same release?

Probably. I'll check the MH issues and tell.

[StooB]

Pro Boxing Simulator

The inlay for this has been replaced with a new scan but the new scan is not the same as the old.

- The original scan at WoS is a version without a product code on the spine

- The new scan here is a version with the product code 2235 on the spine

there are another two variants around:

- this one in Mort's uploads has a product code of 2231 on the spine, which acknowledges that it was "previously known as Fair Means or Foul"

- the original version which has a code of 2231 on the spine but without the Fair Means or Foul admission. There is no scan available for this one but it can be seen on eBay.

✓ Reviewed

[Stu]

@Stu I wasn't referring to the remark about password of the SU cover tape (which is duplicated anyway), but to the remark I mentioned at the start of my previous post, which is both inaccurate and irrelevant.

Oops yes my mistake, I misread what you'd written about deleting the remarks!

Question still stands if anyone thinks it's worth adding the SU password to the relevant covertape entry?

[8BitAG]

According to a review in Adventure Probe issue 17 (October 1987)

The Hermitage
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/6 ... _Hermitage

Was originally published in 1987 by 50/50 Club Software

It's likely that this version is different to any existed version currently archived on the site. (Which date from 1989+)

The game Nythyhel also got a 1987 re-release from 50/50 Club Software
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/6 ... m/Nythyhel

This comes after the original 1986 release by the author Tony Collins, which is a pending addition from the Little bugs #2 thread.

(The review in Adventure Probe alludes to a potential commercial release by Automata/Interceptor Micros, but I don't think that necessarily came to pass)

✓ Reviewed

[PeterJ]

Out of interest, what is the protocol [mention]Einar Saukas[/mention] about adding information to ZXDB based on magazine reviews without other evidence? Do you generally accept the word of the magazine in question? Adventure Probe seems like a trustworthy source.

I appreciate much of this stuff is hard to evidence.

[8BitAG]

If you'd rather I didn't submit any more updates then please let me know.

[PeterJ]

For some reason everything I say seems to upset you. It's just a genuine question not targeted at any individual. I just picked your one as it was last in the list. I've just been reading through the little bugs threads and I wondered what the protocols are, and what are we classing as evidence. Maybe changes like this need a note added as to the source?

I appreciate with the age of the machine and many of the developers not being around anymore that we have to make assumptions sometimes.

Calm. Please. Heavens.

[8BitAG]

A huge chunk of the ZXDB is made up of information from magazines. Sadly there wasn't a protocol for listing sources in the old WOS and there's no way to track back where a lot of the information came from. A lot of the game files aren't even tagged properly, so in many cases we don't even have an idea of how things like inlays and files match up; and if we've documented all the various versions.

Also, even though a lot of entries have really useful and fairly complete magazine references, a lot of the information from those articles, reviews and news pieces aren't reflected in the actual entries. A lot of what we're reporting in these threads is actually information that's already linked to on the game pages.

I do think it would be good practise to quote sources and have a visible changelog for entries on the database; but I'm not sure that's something that is possible with the system.

When I submit corrections, I am generally not looking at a single source. I will always try and find at least another source to back up the changes. For example, even though I've not mentioned it in my previous post... the fact that 50/50 Club Software published some of Tony Collins' games is a known fact on the Amstrad, so I was happy to accept the review of the Spectrum releases (by the same label) as a valid source. I have Amstrad magazines listing The hermitage that appeared before 1989 and also Adventure Probe help section references, that pre-date the 1987 review... so i know the game was around before than. That's in addition to the fact that I had quite a lot of contact with Tony back in the day and was even working on a sequel to Nythyhel/Methyhel with him, so I have my own memories to draw on... But I certainly don't trust them (see below).

I spend an awful lot of time going through old magazines and cross-referencing material. I am constantly going back and questioning assumptions and making corrections when I find other material. These are properly researched submissions. I always try to included at least one of the sources in the post (generally one where the information is given clearest) but I will usually have more. I do sometimes uncover information that contradicts something I've submitted earlier. People back in the day, in reviews and articles, did make mistakes. In general, though, I've found that primary sources (such as magazines and fanzines) from back in the day are a lot more reliable than recent interviews with authors... I've talked to authors that have completely forgotten whole games and versions of games that they made.

I think most people submitting corrections (I dislike the term "little bugs") include references for their reasons so if you want sources then they are there to be added. I apologies if I've become a little bristly when it comes to your comments. At times it feels like we are just being regarded as a nuisance contributing to this thread and that we're not regarded as proper contributors because we're not directly editing the database.

Also, I think that if you read through these threads you will see that we are very much not taking anything printed in a magazine at face value. We are challenging anything that doesn't seem right. That's what half the discussions here are about.

[PeterJ]

Thanks for the useful explanation. I will speak with Einar and see if we could add a source field in the future.

[8BitAG]

Thanks for the useful explanation. I will speak with Einar and see if we could add a source field in the future.

One possibility could be to have a list (hidden/unexpanded by default) of links back to the appropriate posts in the forum, from which the changes were drawn. Nothing fancy, just a collection of links.

[StooB]

But this is only the beginning.

It is just the beginning!

There are duplicates all over the place: Chronos, Ghosts n Goblins, Dynamite Dan II, Glider Rider.

Knight Tyme now has three comments saying the 128k version came out first.

There are lots of comments giving unnecessary compilation information eg: Ultimate's Collected Works, Leaderboard that is already in the database.

Apparently Ski Star 2000 is the first ever game to use icons.

and lots of opinions:

One of the all-time great Arcade-to-8-bit conversions. Up there with any of the Elite conversions of 1985/1986 and it absolutely pissed all over the ST and Amiga conversions. One of the greatest ever feats of programming on the Speccy!

Remember advert stated it had over 40 billion screens (most looked the same). Think this was the number, know it was definitely in the billions. Crap game though.

The first Wally Week game. A lovely platform game, with great graphics (at the time). A game I completed at the time.

A lovely version of Missile Command, which I remember playing back in the heady days of 1984. Very addicitive, and still playable today.

Was not for general release. It is VERY similar to Space Harrier, and unlike that game, is pretty crap.

Strange game this. It was licensed from the music by Vangelis rather than the movie by Ridley Scott (cheaper I suppose). Play the superb PC game (one of my favourites) rather than this.

A very dissapointing game as expectations were so high from the first game. In fact the only reason buying this was Bombjack was on the other side of the tape!!

Based on the (equally crap) TV show.

Criminally underrated by Crash. During the summer of 1984 I played nothing but this game.

A much better game than Shadowfire IMO. Also one of the first games I completed. Nice touch in the end of game sequence where any characters killed during the game were missing during the sequence.

To my knowledge the first cricket that attempted an arcade element.

C&VG did a profile and interview with Stephen Redman when the game was reviewed. Can\'t remember what CVG gave the game though.

Universally panned by all the magazines, buy I quite enjoyed it (though it was very hard), and it had an infinite amount of playability more than the arcade machine.

First game released on the Bulldog label. A pretty good start (shame it all went downhill).

None of this should have been just dumped into the database!

[PeterJ]

Many of these comments are from the WoS database I believe [mention]StooB[/mention], but I'm sure Einar would have more details. The comments can just not be displayed if the majority of users were to be in agreement.

I can do that easily if wanted.

Unless someone is willing to volunteer to sort through them (based on previous similar requests that seems unlikely so we tend to move on and assume it's not that crucial), it would just be a display or not display decision.