Also, multiplayer is "simultaneous", not "turn based".StooB wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:58 pm Flashpoint
This was advertised by Ocean in 1987 but not actually released until 1989 on a Your Sinclair cover tape.
Little bugs in the database 2
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
I'm wondering if MuCho should be listed as machine type 'ZX-Spectrum 48K' as it actually runs on a PC. It does produce Spectrum games though.
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=30011
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=30011
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
"JPW (Spain)" is credited on the following games:
Beach Buggy Simulator released by Silverbird
Ninja Scooter Simulator released by Silverbird
Kosmic Kanga by Dominic Wood and released by Micromania
Solomon's Key by Probe Software (who employed Dominic Wood as a contractor who wrote and designed Mantronix for them as "Syrox")
while "Julian Wood (UK)" is credited on these games:
Project Future by Dominic Wood and released by Micromania
Turbo Boat Simulator released by Silverbird
Dominic Wood was CEO of Syrox Developments until 2000, and Julian Wood is currently CEO.
Conclusion: JPW (Spain) is Julian Wood (UK)!
Beach Buggy Simulator released by Silverbird
Ninja Scooter Simulator released by Silverbird
Kosmic Kanga by Dominic Wood and released by Micromania
Solomon's Key by Probe Software (who employed Dominic Wood as a contractor who wrote and designed Mantronix for them as "Syrox")
while "Julian Wood (UK)" is credited on these games:
Project Future by Dominic Wood and released by Micromania
Turbo Boat Simulator released by Silverbird
Dominic Wood was CEO of Syrox Developments until 2000, and Julian Wood is currently CEO.
Conclusion: JPW (Spain) is Julian Wood (UK)!
✓ Reviewed
- Juan F. Ramirez
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 5137
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:55 am
- Location: Málaga, Spain
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Well spotted.
The definitive evidence might be that the letter W is very rare (now I don't remember any) in spanish surnames.
The definitive evidence might be that the letter W is very rare (now I don't remember any) in spanish surnames.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Titles credited to Walltone Software:
Back-Up Tape Copier, published by Walltone Software
Frog Hopper, published by Walltone Software and re-released by Dixons
Wally Kong, published by Walltone Software, re-released by Calisto and then Dixons
Cybo Run, published by Calisto and re-released by Dixons
Gobstopper, published by Calisto
The Calisto inlays for Wally Kong, Cybo Run and Gobstopper all say "Copyright Walltone Software", but Back-Up Tape Copier is advertised by a company called Walltone Ltd, who sometime between this advert on 27/3/1984 and this one on 3/4/1984 became Evesham Micro Centre.
As for the other two titles supposedly first published by "Walltone Software":
- the original publisher of Back-Up Tape Copier should be changed to Walltone Ltd, who should be "from" or "owned by" Evesham Micro Centre
- the original publisher of Frog Hopper should be Dixons, and the original release from Walltone Software should be removed
- the original publisher of Wally Kong should be Calisto, and the original release from Walltone Software should be removed
- the author of Frog Hopper, Andrew Taylor should be in the team "Walltone Software" (as he is for Gobstopper and Cybo Run)
- the author of Wally Kong, Michael Barnard should be in the team "Walltone Software"
Useless Trivia:
The covers for the Dixons releases of Wally Kong and Frog Hopper were taken from Tynesoft games for the Amstrad and Commodore 16.
Back-Up Tape Copier, published by Walltone Software
Frog Hopper, published by Walltone Software and re-released by Dixons
Wally Kong, published by Walltone Software, re-released by Calisto and then Dixons
Cybo Run, published by Calisto and re-released by Dixons
Gobstopper, published by Calisto
The Calisto inlays for Wally Kong, Cybo Run and Gobstopper all say "Copyright Walltone Software", but Back-Up Tape Copier is advertised by a company called Walltone Ltd, who sometime between this advert on 27/3/1984 and this one on 3/4/1984 became Evesham Micro Centre.
As for the other two titles supposedly first published by "Walltone Software":
- the tzx's of Frog Hopper credited to Dixons and Walltone are the same other than minor timing differences
- the tzx's of Wally Kong credited to Dixons and Walltone are also the same. The Calisto release of Wally Kong has the program name of "KONG" in flashing text, whereas the Dixons/Walltone releases both have a program name of "WALLY KONG"
- there are no covers or instructions available
- there are no references to Walltone Software in any magazines, even in the reviews of the "re-releases" from Calisto
- the original publisher of Back-Up Tape Copier should be changed to Walltone Ltd, who should be "from" or "owned by" Evesham Micro Centre
- the original publisher of Frog Hopper should be Dixons, and the original release from Walltone Software should be removed
- the original publisher of Wally Kong should be Calisto, and the original release from Walltone Software should be removed
- the author of Frog Hopper, Andrew Taylor should be in the team "Walltone Software" (as he is for Gobstopper and Cybo Run)
- the author of Wally Kong, Michael Barnard should be in the team "Walltone Software"
Useless Trivia:
The covers for the Dixons releases of Wally Kong and Frog Hopper were taken from Tynesoft games for the Amstrad and Commodore 16.
✓ Reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Street Hawk - Subscribers Edition
(see: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1682&p=24026#p24026)
The title should be changed to "Street Hawk - Catalogue Edition"
Made-up comment of "When it received bad reviews, a new game was programmed afterward: see Street Hawk." should be changed to "A new game was programmed afterward: see Street Hawk." - because there are no reviews for this version.
Street Hawk (1986 Version)
Made-up comment "and the catalogues were starting to kick a fuss about it." should be deleted. As should "It scored badly, so ", because there were no "scores" for that version.
"see Street Hawk - Subscribers Edition." should be changed to "see Street Hawk - Catalogue Edition."
This inlay - StreetHawk_2.jpg - should be moved to the catalogue edition.
(see: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1682&p=24026#p24026)
The title should be changed to "Street Hawk - Catalogue Edition"
Made-up comment of "When it received bad reviews, a new game was programmed afterward: see Street Hawk." should be changed to "A new game was programmed afterward: see Street Hawk." - because there are no reviews for this version.
Street Hawk (1986 Version)
Made-up comment "and the catalogues were starting to kick a fuss about it." should be deleted. As should "It scored badly, so ", because there were no "scores" for that version.
"see Street Hawk - Subscribers Edition." should be changed to "see Street Hawk - Catalogue Edition."
This inlay - StreetHawk_2.jpg - should be moved to the catalogue edition.
✓ Reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Boulder Dash III
is not published by Prism but by a Swedish company called "American Action AB" - source: instructions
Boulder Dash II: Rockford's Riot
was first published on the 1985 Rockford's Riot + Boulder Dash compilation released by Monolith - reviews in Crash, Sinclair User and Your Computer.
The Prism version is a re-release from 1987 - reviewed by Sinclair User and Your Sinclair.
The 1985 Monolith release page should have the 1987 Your Sinclair review removed - it's already on the Prism 1987 release page.
The 1987 Prism release page should have the 1985 Crash review removed - it's already on the Monolith 1985 release page.
is not published by Prism but by a Swedish company called "American Action AB" - source: instructions
Boulder Dash II: Rockford's Riot
was first published on the 1985 Rockford's Riot + Boulder Dash compilation released by Monolith - reviews in Crash, Sinclair User and Your Computer.
The Prism version is a re-release from 1987 - reviewed by Sinclair User and Your Sinclair.
The 1985 Monolith release page should have the 1987 Your Sinclair review removed - it's already on the Prism 1987 release page.
The 1987 Prism release page should have the 1985 Crash review removed - it's already on the Monolith 1985 release page.
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Book of the Dead, by The Essential Myth
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=6033
The prices for the original self-published version by The Essential Myth, and the later glossy professional CRL seem to be the wrong way around.
From the relevant reviews, it should be £3.95 for the Essential Myth version and £8.95 for the CRL re-release.
(Sources: https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/mag.php ... 08&page=64
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/mag.php ... 66&page=33
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/mag.php ... 37&page=86 )
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=6033
The prices for the original self-published version by The Essential Myth, and the later glossy professional CRL seem to be the wrong way around.
From the relevant reviews, it should be £3.95 for the Essential Myth version and £8.95 for the CRL re-release.
(Sources: https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/mag.php ... 08&page=64
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/mag.php ... 66&page=33
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/mag.php ... 37&page=86 )
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Thanks all for the reports. Sorry if I'm not as active as before over here, real life got in the middle, but I have plans to work this changes soon!
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
The credits are wrong for The Amulet of Darath...
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=5949
Trevor Taylor is credited as having helped with the game (the in-game credit is to T. Taylor)
but it was actually Terry Taylor who helped with playtesting and ideas.
Terry Taylor has an existing entry here...
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... l_id=14382
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=5949
Trevor Taylor is credited as having helped with the game (the in-game credit is to T. Taylor)
but it was actually Terry Taylor who helped with playtesting and ideas.
Terry Taylor has an existing entry here...
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... l_id=14382
✓ reviewed
- Juan F. Ramirez
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 5137
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:55 am
- Location: Málaga, Spain
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Subsunk by Firebird:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index ... 6&id=7055
The loading screen shown is from the outlet compilation, not the original Firebird release (subsunk(Outlet).scr instead of subsunk.scr).
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index ... 6&id=7055
The loading screen shown is from the outlet compilation, not the original Firebird release (subsunk(Outlet).scr instead of subsunk.scr).
✓ reviewed
- Einar Saukas
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Sorry for missing your question until now...StooB wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:50 pm One for @Einar Saukas here:
Is it correct that titles that were first released on compilations or on cover tapes have an entry in the releases table?
examples:
Blob The Cop which was only released on the Sinclair User #83 cover tape
- it is listed as an "Original Release" published by Sinclair User, 1989
- and also appears on the compilation "Sinclair User issue 83: Megatape 12" published by Sinclair User, 1989
Great Gurianos first released on the Trio compilation from Hit-Pak, and later as a budget release from Encore
- listed as an "Original Release" published by Hit-Pak, 1987
- and also appears on the compilation "Trio" published by Hit-Pak, 1987
Aren't "releases" supposed to be for titles that had a standalone release? It doesn't seem consistent when titles that were re-released on a cover tape or compilation don't have a "release".
You are right. Covertapes and compilations don't count as re-releases.
However original release is a special case. If a certain game was originally released in a covertape or compilation, then it's stored explicitly in table "releases". Moreover a field in table "entries" called "publicationtype_id" is marked as either "As part of a compilation" or "On magazine covertape", to indicate it's a special case.
I know this special rule sounds somewhat weird at first, but it reflects people's perception. When an existing game reappears in a compilation, people don't usually say that game was re-released. But when a certain game is released in a compilation first, people usually say the game's original release was within this compilation.
✓ Reviewed
- Einar Saukas
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
That's the theory.StooB wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:40 amCopyright begins at the time of creation.Juan F. Ramirez wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:37 am This made me think: what does the copyright year mean?
Is it possible to have a (c) year and a different release year?
It's only because software was produced so quickly that the copyright year and release year tend to be the same, compared to books where there it could take years for something to be published.
In practice, if developers started creating a game in 1987 but released it in 1988, they would update it to say (c)1988. Nobody wants players first impression to be they just bought an outdated game. Every developer I know did it (including myself).
Whenever you find a game that says (c)1987 but it was released later, it's almost certain they intended to release it in 1987 but it took longer than expected for the actual release.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Something that I also noticed and seems confusing is the copyright owner vs the publisher. For example, on Virgin Mastertronic games, VM is the copyright holder, but the games are usually published by Virgin Games. I was thinking on having an extra field: copyright label and copyright year, but, of course, if we do that, we need to populate this on the database, that can be a challenge.Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:28 pm Whenever you find a game that says (c)1987 but it was released later, it's almost certain they intended to release it in 1987 but it took longer than expected for the actual release.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Referencing this advert from Adventure Probe (Volume 1 Issue 10 March 1987)...
The following games should have a first publication date of at least 1986, under the publisher name 'Anthony Collins' [this release pre-dates Pegasus Software/The Guild]
Nythyhel
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=6752
Miami Mice [Note: this title was Quilled]
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=27701
Theseus ***
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=7094
Teacher Trouble ***
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=27701
*** NOTE: Both Theseus and Teacher Trouble were QUILLed games in these 1986 releases, before being recoded as PAWed games for the later releases by The Guild/Zenobi etc. The Quilled versions seem to be MIA.
I don't think that we have yet decided on a firm line for whether we combine games as a single entry, even if completely different versions exist.
There are both instances where we do... e,g. Quest for the Golden Eggcup
and where we don't!
...e.g. Federation / Quann Tulla
Presumably, the use of a different title would be a deciding factor?
The following games should have a first publication date of at least 1986, under the publisher name 'Anthony Collins' [this release pre-dates Pegasus Software/The Guild]
Nythyhel
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=6752
Miami Mice [Note: this title was Quilled]
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=27701
Theseus ***
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=7094
Teacher Trouble ***
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=27701
*** NOTE: Both Theseus and Teacher Trouble were QUILLed games in these 1986 releases, before being recoded as PAWed games for the later releases by The Guild/Zenobi etc. The Quilled versions seem to be MIA.
I don't think that we have yet decided on a firm line for whether we combine games as a single entry, even if completely different versions exist.
There are both instances where we do... e,g. Quest for the Golden Eggcup
and where we don't!
...e.g. Federation / Quann Tulla
Presumably, the use of a different title would be a deciding factor?
✓ Reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... el_id=1333
http://speccy.info/Ascendancy - it's a group from Belarus, Grodno. The full name is Ascendancy Creative Labs.
http://speccy.info/Ascendancy - it's a group from Belarus, Grodno. The full name is Ascendancy Creative Labs.
✓ Reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... el_id=6412
Izhevsk is not a publisher, Izhevsk is a city in Russia.
Izhevsk is not a publisher, Izhevsk is a city in Russia.
✓ Reviewed
- Einar Saukas
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
It was common practice for publishers to have multiple labels. One for top games, other for budget titles, another for re-releases, sometimes yet another for adventures, etc. Then it made more sense to keep all copyrights in the main company, so if it decided later to close a subsidiary, it wouldn't have to move all existing copyrights somewhere else. Or perhaps all those labels were not real companies, just different brands belonging to a single company.druellan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:07 pmSomething that I also noticed and seems confusing is the copyright owner vs the publisher. For example, on Virgin Mastertronic games, VM is the copyright holder, but the games are usually published by Virgin Games. I was thinking on having an extra field: copyright label and copyright year, but, of course, if we do that, we need to populate this on the database, that can be a challenge.Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:28 pm Whenever you find a game that says (c)1987 but it was released later, it's almost certain they intended to release it in 1987 but it took longer than expected for the actual release.
ZXDB already stores information about labels that belong to other labels. I think that's enough, we don't need to keep track of copyrights separately. If a certain game was published by label A that belongs to B, someone would need to talk about any copyright issues with B anyway, regardless if the game copyright was assigned to A or B.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Yes, but that information is not timestamped, for example currently on ZXDB, the owner of Virgin Games is Titus, since Titus bought Virgin Interactive on the 2000. There is no reference that, on the '80, Virgin Games was part of Virgin Mastertronic.Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:44 pm ZXDB already stores information about labels that belong to other labels. I think that's enough, we don't need to keep track of copyrights separately. If a certain game was published by label A that belongs to B, someone would need to talk about any copyright issues with B anyway, regardless if the game copyright was assigned to A or B.
Just to be clear, my concern is more towards the information displayed on SC, specially since we are starting to deviate from other databases like WOS or MobyGames, that tend to list the copyright owner, not the publisher.
Again, not sure if this information is worth to be preserved, I don't like to add new fields that later we need to populate on 30.000+ entries, but it is kind of bothering me, since I myself find fascinating to discover that some labels I remember from back in the date, were in fact "fantasy" labels owned by another company.
- Einar Saukas
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
But it's because this information (imported from Martijn's WoS) isn't detailed enough. It simply says all these companies are owned by Titus.druellan wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:26 pmYes, but that information is not timestamped, for example currently on ZXDB, the owner of Virgin Games is Titus, since Titus bought Virgin Interactive on the 2000. There is no reference that, on the '80, Virgin Games was part of Virgin Mastertronic.Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:44 pm ZXDB already stores information about labels that belong to other labels. I think that's enough, we don't need to keep track of copyrights separately. If a certain game was published by label A that belongs to B, someone would need to talk about any copyright issues with B anyway, regardless if the game copyright was assigned to A or B.
I suggest changing this information as follows:
- "Virgin Games Ltd" became "Virgin Mastertronic Ltd"
- "Mastertronic Ltd" owned by "Virgin Mastertronic Ltd"
- "Virgin Mastertronic Ltd" owned by Titus
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Strictly speaking this isn't a bug, but Black Lamp features Rainbow Graphics and isn't listed so.
✓ Reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Virgin Games was part of Virgin Mastertronic until Sega (not Titus) bought the Mastertronic part of the company, and then they continued being Virgin Games independently.Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:29 am
But it's because this information (imported from Martijn's WoS) isn't detailed enough. It simply says all these companies are owned by Titus.
I suggest changing this information as follows:
This way, the information should be more accurate. Agreed?
- "Virgin Games Ltd" became "Virgin Mastertronic Ltd"
- "Mastertronic Ltd" owned by "Virgin Mastertronic Ltd"
- "Virgin Mastertronic Ltd" owned by Titus
The current system can't define Virgin Games as only being a part of Virgin Mastertronic from 1988-91.
I think there's only two ways to solve this:
1. add extra fields to every single release - like 'owner', 'label'
2. treat the titles as joint publications, so for Silkworm the original would be published by Virgin Games and Virgin Mastertronic, while the Tronix re-release would be published by Tronix and Virgin Games