ZXSR bugs

[Einar Saukas]

I doubt this game is better than Renegade as mentioned here

[Vampyre]

I doubt this game is better than Renegade as mentioned here

Fixed. Great spot!

[Vampyre]

Hi guys. Quick request for a little help with some text here. Hopefully someone can provide it.

In Your Sinclair Issue #15 there is a review of The Hive. In the picture text of "A TASTE OF HONEY" the bottom left text is missing a line. The text I currently have for it is:

"It's important to keep your peepers peeled on the level indicator, as you won't necessarily move up just a single level. You may even move down one! Best {UNINTELLIGIBLE} going up."

Unfortunately I can't read most of that last line. The scans has it more legible on the following page but there's no chance of even guessing it (which I don't like to do anyway). The hi-res scans on Internet Archive are actually worse (for this bit, generally they are superb) and the line is missing altogether.

If anyone has the magazine in question, could you provide me with the unintelligible text?

Cheers, Vamp.

[Einar Saukas]

Gold, Silver, Bronze is listed as reviewed twice in The Games Machine #11, both references are incorrect.

[StooB]

Gold, Silver, Bronze is listed as reviewed twice in The Games Machine #11, both references are incorrect.

They're not incorrect, the Spectrum versions of Summer Games I and II were originally released on Gold Silver Bronze. The footnote on the review in The Games Machine #12 explains it.

[Einar Saukas]

Even so, magazine The Games Machine #11 published reviews of individual games (Summer Games and Summer Games II), not a review of the compilation.

[StooB]

Even so, magazine The Games Machine #11 published reviews of individual games (Summer Games and Summer Games II), not a review of the compilation.

Yes, but they are both also flagged specifically as "Review - Summer Games" rather than just "Review". They were added to this item deliberately, because they need to be viewed in the context of the issue 12 review and explanation.

If you take them off this and leave them on the individual games then sooner or later they're going to get accidentally added as £14.99 individual releases because the link to the erratum has been lost.

[Vampyre]

A tricky one this as I can see both points of view as being valid. Let me have a think about it, or if anyone else wants to offer their opinion then please feel free. Let's go with a community vote!

I do like the way they're tagged to the compilation and the site displays them as "Review - Summer Games x".

But at the same time both games have their own ZXDBID and it looks like in their unique pages that they don't have a ZXSR review.

Maybe the reviews should be included on the unique titles as well as both on the compilation? But that doesn't feel quite right either.

[Einar Saukas]

If you take them off this and leave them on the individual games then sooner or later they're going to get accidentally added as £14.99 individual releases because the link to the erratum has been lost.

In each review, the price refers to the compilation but the score refers to the individual game. Associating review scores incorrectly is worse than associating prices incorrectly, because it will affect the average score of the compilation inappropriately.

I do like the way they're tagged to the compilation and the site displays them as "Review - Summer Games x".

What about a tradeoff?

In each compilation page, SC could also list automatically all reviews of individual titles within the compilation (indicating them clearly in the way you mentioned). Perhaps also the opposite, i.eeach game could also list automatically all reviews of compilations containing this title (indicating them as such).

This way, scores will be calculated correctly, and users will still have easy access to all related reviews.

[StooB]

In each review, the price refers to the compilation but the score refers to the individual game. Associating review scores incorrectly is worse than associating prices incorrectly, because it will affect the average score of the compilation inappropriately.

The review scores of the individual games should be ignored because they were based on the notion that each one was being sold separately at £15 each. The scores would have been different if they were aware each game was effectively only £5.

[Einar Saukas]

This is a review of "The Lost Dragon" only:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/zxsr.php?id=14693

[Einar Saukas]

There are 2 reviews of Golden Axe in the same page, with very different scores:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/page.ph ... 98&page=59

[Stefan]

There are 2 reviews of Golden Axe in the same page, with very different scores:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/page.ph ... 98&page=59

Just trying to follow along, but this is too cryptic for me.

[Einar Saukas]

Just trying to follow along, but this is too cryptic for me.

In the upper half of this page, Golden Axe got an individual score of 70 when reviewed as part of "2 Hot 2 Handle" compilation.

In the lower half of this page, Golden Axe got a score of 30 when reviewed as standalone release.

ZXSR only stored the latter score, not the former.

[Vampyre]

This is a review of "The Lost Dragon" only:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/zxsr.php?id=14693

Updated. Good spot!

[8BitAG]

Why is that labelled "by not known"?

(The Lost Dragon tape *always* had the revised version of The Magic Treasure on the B-side, by the way. So I guess, it is a review of the whole tape... it just doesn't mention the free bonus game)

[Vampyre]

In the upper half of this page, Golden Axe got an individual score of 70 when reviewed as part of "2 Hot 2 Handle" compilation.

In the lower half of this page, Golden Axe got a score of 30 when reviewed as standalone release.

ZXSR only stored the latter score, not the former.

ZXSR wouldn't have the compilation review as an individual game review as it's a review for the compilation, but the lower score review is obviously correct. In the past I would have had those individual compilation scores in the SSD_Reviews_Scores table under the compilation Review ID but I think we came to a mutual decision a while back to move compilation individual game scores from that table into SSD_Reviews_Scores_Compilations and only keep the Overall score in SSD_Reviews_Scores. However...

The individual scores for this review aren't in SSD_Reviews_Scores_Compilations either so I will get them added for the next version. I also think a good look at the compilation reviews is in order as I'm certain that this compilation review isn't unique in this respect.

[Stefan]

In the upper half of this page, Golden Axe got an individual score of 70 when reviewed as part of "2 Hot 2 Handle" compilation.

In the lower half of this page, Golden Axe got a score of 30 when reviewed as standalone release.

ZXSR only stored the latter score, not the former.

Wow, the lack of screenshots of Golden Axe on the upper review blinded me.

[Einar Saukas]

Why is that labelled "by not known"?

I believe that's the way ZXSR indicates that program authors are unknown.

(The Lost Dragon tape *always* had the revised version of The Magic Treasure on the B-side, by the way. So I guess, it is a review of the whole tape... it just doesn't mention the free bonus game)

This is tricky. Did the reviewer intended to review (and take into account in the final score) the entire tape content (including the bonus), or just this specific game?

Apparently the criteria originally adopted in WoS and SPOT/SPEX is that, if the reviewer "acknowledged" (mentioned) the existence of the bonus game in the review, then it was probably taken into account. If the reviewer never did, then it probably wasn't.

[8BitAG]

I believe that's the way ZXSR indicates that program authors are unknown.

In this case, they're not. The review even mentions the author.

[StooB]

What about a tradeoff?

In each compilation page, SC could also list automatically all reviews of individual titles within the compilation (indicating them clearly in the way you mentioned).

Could the individual references could be kept separate, or sorted by game? For example, a title like 6-Pak now has hundreds of magazine references and it's almost impossible to find the ones for the actual compilation.

[Vampyre]

I believe that's the way ZXSR indicates that program authors are unknown.

That's correct. ZXSR was synched with ZXDB many, many moons ago and I didn't realise the reviews page was pulling that initial bit of info at the very top from ZXSR - I've always assumed that was from ZXDB and the rest from ZXSR API. Live and learn! SC's page doesn't have Tom Frost as the creator either, but I will update ZXSR's version.

It's my full intention, at some point, to completely remove the Game, Publishers and Authors etc tables from ZXSR and purely use ZXDB's. It's just getting around to doing it is the problem!

[Einar Saukas]

In this case, they're not. The review even mentions the author.

Ah, that's it! It's because that's a compilation!

Compilations and covertapes don't have authors. They only have publishers.

It's the individual programs inside a compilation that have authors, not the compilation itself.

[Einar Saukas]

Could the individual references could be kept separate, or sorted by game? For example, a title like 6-Pak now has hundreds of magazine references and it's almost impossible to find the ones for the actual compilation.

Sure!

[8BitAG]

Ah, that's it! It's because that's a compilation!

Compilations and covertapes don't have authors. They only have publishers.

It's the individual programs inside a compilation that have authors, not the compilation itself.

So, in this case, if the review is deemed as only being for the main game (The Lost Dragon) itself, as it doesn't mention the free bonus game that was on every copy, then the author does need to be adjusted and assigned as Tom D. Frost. (The author for the free game is the same, in this case).