Post by Mark Jones Junior on Mar 4, 2005 6:47:53 GMT -5
'Micro Hobby' gave it 5 out of 5 stars.
'Sinclair User' 9 out 10.
'Your Sinclair; 9 out of 10 and classed it as a 'YS Megagame.
'Crash' 49% ?!!
You wanna know why I think WHY 'Crash' gave it such a bad review and was completely the opposite to what everyone else thought at the time?
Me and PaulOwnes Owens were asked by Gary to get the first level ready as 'Crash' wanted it for a sampler to put on the front of issue 45. I got the graphics done but Paul didn't get the level ready enough for it to go on the tape. So we missed the deadline for inclusion on the tape. In that issue, in the preview section, they wrote:
"Ocean has one or two licences kicking their heels on it's super portable games machines, and one of them ought to have been featured on our sampler this issue -Gryzor. Unfortunately Ocean's Gary Bracey couldn't persuade their programmers to get anything suitable ready in time."
I think they just got annoyed that the demo didn't turn up, hence the big difference in their review a few months later in issue 49. Which goes to prove you couldn't believe everything that was written in the magazines (see the 'Micro Hobby review of 'Total Recall', reviewed off a crappy unplayable demo, to add weight to my argument!)
'Crash' said that 'Gryzor' was very poor graphically. 'Sinclair User' said that 'Gryzor' was better graphically than most games around at the moment. 'Crash' had 'Rubbish graphics?' underneath one of the screen shots and also said 'the addictive nature of the game is outweighed by the poor graphics...The graphics are poor with appalling animation'. 'Your Sinclair' said 'Graphics are well up to scratch'. Graphics got '45%' in 'Crash', in 'Your Sinclair' they got given 8 out 10.
What do you reckon? You reckon that they gave the game a sh*te review cos we didn't (well, Paul didn't) get the demo to them? Seems odd to me that the same game can get great reviews everywhere else but the one mag who wanted a demo and didn't get one should slag it off so much.
Or am I just letting something bother me now that didn't bother me that much then? I'm tending to look at my old games a bit more fondly now than I did up back then!
'Sinclair User' 9 out 10.
'Your Sinclair; 9 out of 10 and classed it as a 'YS Megagame.
'Crash' 49% ?!!
You wanna know why I think WHY 'Crash' gave it such a bad review and was completely the opposite to what everyone else thought at the time?
Me and Paul
"Ocean has one or two licences kicking their heels on it's super portable games machines, and one of them ought to have been featured on our sampler this issue -Gryzor. Unfortunately Ocean's Gary Bracey couldn't persuade their programmers to get anything suitable ready in time."
I think they just got annoyed that the demo didn't turn up, hence the big difference in their review a few months later in issue 49. Which goes to prove you couldn't believe everything that was written in the magazines (see the 'Micro Hobby review of 'Total Recall', reviewed off a crappy unplayable demo, to add weight to my argument!)
'Crash' said that 'Gryzor' was very poor graphically. 'Sinclair User' said that 'Gryzor' was better graphically than most games around at the moment. 'Crash' had 'Rubbish graphics?' underneath one of the screen shots and also said 'the addictive nature of the game is outweighed by the poor graphics...The graphics are poor with appalling animation'. 'Your Sinclair' said 'Graphics are well up to scratch'. Graphics got '45%' in 'Crash', in 'Your Sinclair' they got given 8 out 10.
What do you reckon? You reckon that they gave the game a sh*te review cos we didn't (well, Paul didn't) get the demo to them? Seems odd to me that the same game can get great reviews everywhere else but the one mag who wanted a demo and didn't get one should slag it off so much.
Or am I just letting something bother me now that didn't bother me that much then? I'm tending to look at my old games a bit more fondly now than I did up back then!