Little bugs in the database 2
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Hi [mention]Alessandro[/mention]
The last update was mainly to add ZXSR and didn't include normal updates. We will get this files updated as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience.
The last update was mainly to add ZXSR and didn't include normal updates. We will get this files updated as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
The Master
was published by Antartic, the only Spectrum release on Artic's budget label and the price should be £1.99, not £5.99
(sources: Crash review Sinclair User review Your Sinclair review)
Also, the score was missing from the YS review and shows up here as "Not Rated", but the index of every YS score from the final issue shows that it should have been 5.
was published by Antartic, the only Spectrum release on Artic's budget label and the price should be £1.99, not £5.99
(sources: Crash review Sinclair User review Your Sinclair review)
Also, the score was missing from the YS review and shows up here as "Not Rated", but the index of every YS score from the final issue shows that it should have been 5.
✓ Reviewed
- Metalbrain
- Microbot
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:14 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Not exactly a bug, but I've just realized 2 maps for Las Tres Luces de Glaurung are exactly the same, just one is bigger than the other:
check:
TresLucesDeGlaurungLas.jpg
TresLucesDeGlaurungLas_2.jpg
Maybe we can just remove the smaller one?
(The same happens in WoS)
check:
TresLucesDeGlaurungLas.jpg
TresLucesDeGlaurungLas_2.jpg
Maybe we can just remove the smaller one?
(The same happens in WoS)
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
In Football Manager 2: https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=1827
The file named FootballManager2_2.tap.zip is NOT a Spanish version of Football Manager 2, but a Spanish, without copyright, version of Football Manager 1
The file named FootballManager2_2.tap.zip is NOT a Spanish version of Football Manager 2, but a Spanish, without copyright, version of Football Manager 1
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
World Cup Carnival
The unsourced comment on this game reads:
According to "The History of US Gold" by Chris Wilkins:
The unsourced comment on this game reads:
This appears to be completely made-up - there's nothing to support this in any of the magazine references, and it's not even the excuse they gave to Crash at the time.The explanation which U.S. Gold gave for the World Cup Carnival fiasco (re-releasing the ancient Artic game World Cup Football at twice the price for anybody who can't remember) was that they had commissioned a programmer to write an original game but the game was terrible and they did not have enough time to have a new game written before the World Cup. There must therefore be a completed unreleased version of WCC floating about somewhere.
According to "The History of US Gold" by Chris Wilkins:
So, the comment should either be removed, or updated. There really isn't an even worse version of World Cup Carnival out there somewhere.‘At the time Ocean knew something about football with Jon Ritman’s Matchday, so Woods and Ward said to Geoff, look, football games are really hard, let us do this. We’ll get a World Cup game for you, and we’ll use our Match Day code. Anyway, something happened there and theoretically Ocean were going to go away and develop the game. Three months before the World Cup we were so busy I hadn’t given it much thought. So I asked Geoff if he’d seen anything of the game from Ocean, and he said, no, I’ll call them up. He phoned to learn they’d done nothing on it. So we had this licence, we had the World Cup coming – and we said, sh*t we need a game.’
‘That’s when we went out to every single developer in the UK,’ Geoff takes up the tale. ‘Artic were the only one who came forward and said they could do it in time.’
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
I would leave it at '84. Might have been released start 84. Can't remember how it was done back then, as I was to young to pay taxes To clarify this we would need to see a picture of the tape label, as the inlay or the program itself doesn't say anything about it.PeterJ wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 amDoes this mean the release year is wrong too? (Currently says 1984)Frankie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:54 am Name change
This one:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=14836
Needs to be changed from:
Skatteberegning
to:
Skatteberegning 1983
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Oneiroid (https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=17226) is produced by Slip (https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... l_id=13432). Triumph may be the publisher (of demo version?), I don't know for sure.
Slip is Sergey Slobodchikov, Russia, Khabarovsk. He was a member of Action (group, Russia, Khabarovsk): https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... bel_id=355
Action is called in Oneiroid as ActionStudio.
Slip is Sergey Slobodchikov, Russia, Khabarovsk. He was a member of Action (group, Russia, Khabarovsk): https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... bel_id=355
Action is called in Oneiroid as ActionStudio.
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... bel_id=267 - AGSoftware is from Saint Petersburg according to Evacuator game.
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
And do we have in ZXDB information about the town of an author/group?AGSoftware is from Saint Petersburg according to Evacuator game.
I know it's an important thing in Russian scene - these guys were from Moscow, these from Novosibirsk and so on...
But in case of Western commercial games in most cases we just wouldn't know...
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
It would be nice idea to display all the authors and companies on a world map, using some maps engine like OpenLayers. This would make this city/town information really valuable.Ralf wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:34 pmAnd do we have in ZXDB information about the town of an author/group?AGSoftware is from Saint Petersburg according to Evacuator game.
I know it's an important thing in Russian scene - these guys were from Moscow, these from Novosibirsk and so on...
But in case of Western commercial games in most cases we just wouldn't know...
One more correction:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... l_id=13280 - Silva Soft is a person, not company. He is from Golitsyno-2 (Krasnoznamensk), Russia, his name is Sergey Zapara.
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
The data currently in ZXDB is too imprecise for that.
For example, ZXDB doesn't distinguish between
- Imagine Software of Liverpool and Imagine Software as part of Ocean in Manchester
- Quicksilva (Southampton) and Bug Byte (Liverpool) and their later incarnations as labels of Argus Press in London
- Firebird as part of BT in London and when it was sold to Microprose in Tetbury
Electronic Arts and Microprose software is shown as "USA" even though it was released in the UK by their UK divisions.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Hi 8BitAG! Just finishing doing this series of changes, but I'm curious about the source of this information, since the labels usually don't have a date. Is there a reference online, or is this something John Wilson commented? Thanks!
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
I was around on the scene at the time so I remember the dates... However, verification is from Red Herring/Adventure Probe fanzine news pieces, advertisements by GI Games in said magazines, Zenobi Software's monthly newsletters and discussions with John Wilson himself.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Excellent. Oh, and a small clarification, on this one:8BitAG wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:17 pm I was around on the scene at the time so I remember the dates... However, verification is from Red Herring/Adventure Probe fanzine news pieces, advertisements by GI Games in said magazines, Zenobi Software's monthly newsletters and discussions with John Wilson himself.
I can see that the +D disk is dated 1995, I assume that the correct year is 1993 as the others, right?
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Yes, John got his +D in 1993 so that's when that format was made available by Zenobi across the board.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Hi, sorry for going back into this, I don't want to make mistakes. Based on the files listed on the downloads sections, are this changes correct?8BitAG wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:22 pm Microfair Madness
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=6682
was re-released by Zenobi in 1993
Note: only the 128K version was re-released. Not the separate and distinct 48K version.
MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).mgt.zip -- 1995 -> 1993, based on the previous report
MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, 128k version
MicrofairMadness(different)(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- bogus image
MicrofairMadnessPart1(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
MicrofairMadnessPart2(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
Thanks!
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Only to happy to clarify anything.druellan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:49 pm Hi, sorry for going back into this, I don't want to make mistakes. Based on the files listed on the downloads sections, are this changes correct?
MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).mgt.zip -- 1995 -> 1993, based on the previous report
MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, 128k version
MicrofairMadness(different)(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- bogus image
MicrofairMadnessPart1(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
MicrofairMadnessPart2(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
Yes.MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).mgt.zip -- 1995 -> 1993, based on the previous report
Yes.MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, 128k version
Yes. I'm still not sure what this is or where it came from!MicrofairMadness(different)(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- bogus image
Yes, I presume they are snapshots from the Zenobi edition... there's no way of actually telling.MicrofairMadnessPart1(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
MicrofairMadnessPart2(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
However... the one labelled part two is actually a snapshot of part three of the game.
It's been an ongoing saga to get the second part of the game correctly referenced in the database... I gave up trying to do so on WOS!
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
I can see that the release date is also 1983, based on the inlay:Frankie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:54 am https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=14836
Needs to be changed from: Skatteberegning
to: Skatteberegning 1983
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Hi! We are discussing what to do about this one. We don't want to remove EA, even as distributor we believe they are part of the game history and worth preserving. The problem here is that the information is not accurate or displayed on a improper way: visually looks like EA is a co-publisher, not the distributor. But until we fix that, I think it is better to keep EA on the entry.StooB wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:49 pm It's very clear on the UK adverts for Game Over 2 and Navy Moves that Electronic Arts are the distributor, not the publisher. Electronic Arts were the distributors for several publishers, most notoriously CRL, and EA don't get a publisher credit on those titles.
So, since you mentioned CRL and other labels also distributed by EA, I was wondering if worth the task to add EA also on those. Perhaps we can find a compromise. I'm going to open another thread to discuss this more in deep.
- Einar Saukas
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 3133
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
The reasoning for Navy Moves is that, in this particular case, it seems EA was not just a retailer/reseller for this game. The fact that EA name was included in adverts and/or inlays suggests that EA was more directly involved in the actual release of the game.druellan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:49 pmHi! We are discussing what to do about this one. We don't want to remove EA, even as distributor we believe they are part of the game history and worth preserving. The problem here is that the information is not accurate or displayed on a improper way: visually looks like EA is a co-publisher, not the distributor. But until we fix that, I think it is better to keep EA on the entry.StooB wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:49 pm It's very clear on the UK adverts for Game Over 2 and Navy Moves that Electronic Arts are the distributor, not the publisher. Electronic Arts were the distributors for several publishers, most notoriously CRL, and EA don't get a publisher credit on those titles.
So, since you mentioned CRL and other labels also distributed by EA, I was wondering if worth the task to add EA also on those. Perhaps we can find a compromise. I'm going to open another thread to discuss this more in deep.
For the record, when you see 2 (or more) company names listed as publisher for the same release, it means the game was "co-published" together by them. Perhaps both companies shared all publishing responsabilities. Or perhaps they divided responsabilities, with one company more involved in production and another in distribution for instance.
IMHO it would be weird for us to omit the name of a company that was credited in the original game material. Perhaps we should draw the line as follows: if the original release considered worthwhile to credit the distributor together in the publishing credits, then we should also list it as co-publisher.
Now regarding Game Over 2, I think we should apply the same logic, updating re-release #1 to indicate this specific release was co-published by both Dinamic and EA together (instead of just EA).
Makes sense?
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Actually, the only place Electronic Arts are credited is on the advert - there is no mention of them on the box, in the instruction manual or on the tapes themselves. Even the barcode is Dinamic's 413460 (which is the same on Dinamic titles that are not EA distributed), rather than Electronic Arts (015839).Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:52 pm Perhaps we should draw the line as follows: if the original release considered worthwhile to credit the distributor together in the publishing credits, then we should also list it as co-publisher.
The instructions are in French, Italian, German and English so I think that the same product was sold in all four countries with EA just being the UK distributor. Here's a French advert showing Ubisoft as distributor:
http://www.atarimania.com/pubs/hi_res/a ... over-2.jpg
The CRL titles distributed by EA only seem to be identifiable by a "Distributed by Electronic Arts" sticker on the inlay. They aren't mentioned on the adverts at all.
- Einar Saukas
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 3133
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
OK, I'm convinced! Now I think it makes more sense to only credit Dinamic for this re-release.
[mention]druellan[/mention] What do you think?
[mention]druellan[/mention] What do you think?
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
I'm not keen of removing information, but perhaps we can remove EA from the publisher list, and add a note like "Electronic Arts was advertised as distributor for Dinamic's UK release.".
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Oh, Mummy: https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=3494
The Sinclair research re-release is part of a compilation for the Spectrum +2, so the re-release year should be 1986. Also the two Sinclair downloads are from that compilation (again, 1986).
The Sinclair research re-release is part of a compilation for the Spectrum +2, so the re-release year should be 1986. Also the two Sinclair downloads are from that compilation (again, 1986).
✓ Reviewed