Halmanator

X-Plane 10: Regional Edition - North America (Windows)

Only Serious Aviation Enthusiasts Need Apply

The Good
X-Plane was designed by a pilot for fellow aviation enthusiasts, and it shows. The physics engine that simulates flight is arguably the most advanced available for personal computers. X-Plane's flight engine employs a technology known as "blade element theory" which boasts the ability to accurately simulate anything that flies. It's not just for armchair pilots. It's also a tool for engineers who design aircraft. The manual boasts that X-Plane is used by defense contractors, air forces, aircraft manufacturers and even space agencies for concept design and flight testing as well as for flight training.

X-Plane is available as a retail version or as a commercial version. The FAA (U.S. Federal Aviation Administration) has certified the commercial version for use in logging hours towards flight experience and ratings. There is almost no difference between the retail and commercial versions of the software; the only differences are the hardware on which the two versions run and the commercial version comes with custom aircraft versions with larger instrument panels that work with hardware radios like those found in physical cockpits. Also, the commercial version lacks some of the "entertainment" features such as space flight. All this means that X-Plane is much more than just a game. It's a serious flight simulator. This review will, of course, focus on the retail version of X-Plane 10.

There are two retail versions of X-Plane available; the Regional: North America version ships on a single DVD and includes scenery covering most of the continental United States. The Global version includes scenery covering the entire world, spanning from 74 degrees North to 60 degrees South latitude and it ships on ... hold on to your hard disks ... eight (count 'em!) 8 DVD-ROM discs! If you purchased the Regional: North America version and later decide that you'd like the scenery for the rest of the world, you can purchase a Global Upgrade, which is what I did. However, there is a caveat here that I will get to later.

The scenery features exquisite attention to fine details. Airport runways and taxiways feature 3D modeled approach, runway and taxiway lights. Roads and expressways are fully modelled with 3D traffic, on and off ramps and overpasses and underpasses and even 3D streetlights along both sides. Flying over a busy cloverleaf at low altitude is an absolutely stunning experience.

Land classes in general are nicely modeled and rendered. Rivers meander across the terrain, water ripples and reflects the sky, shorelines have a nicely organic, non-geometrical appearance and mountains and valleys feature detailed rocky or forested textures and cast pleasing shadows and highlights. Trees are also individually rendered although, at very low altitude, it becomes apparent that they are two-dimensional.

Shadows can be realistically rendered, both on the world scenery and on the surfaces of the aircraft itself. Light sources dynamically light up their surroundings. Aircraft spotlights throw bright halos on the ground in front of the aircraft. Fly just below the clouds during a thunderstorm and every lightning bolt dynamically lights up your aircraft and the clouds around it. At night, the effect is stunning!

Speaking of thunderstorms, all types of weather are realistically modeled. You can set the weather to your liking or the sim can approximate real world weather at your current location.

Aircraft are lovingly rendered. X-Plane ships with a nice variety of aircraft, including small civilian aircraft such as the venerable Cessna 172SP, or Cirrus theJet (a personal single-engine jet aircraft), airliners such as the Boeing 747, large military transports such as the C-130 Hercules, fighters such as the F-4 Phantom or the F-22 Raptor, large bombers such as the Boeing B-52 Flying Fortress or the Rockwell B-1B and also helicopters and a glider, to name but a few. All aircraft are rendered in great detail and most feature both 2D and 3D cockpits and instrument panels. Each also features its own unique engine sounds (except for the glider - ha-ha). Military aircraft can even fire guns and launch other weapons.

X-Plane's performance is much more consistent and stable than I've seen in other home flight simulators. With all the graphical details cranked up, X-Plane can bring all but the most high-end GPU's to a crawl. However, once you've arrived at settings that give you a decent frame rate, the rendered flow stays fairly consistent. Of course, flying in more densely populated regions will bring down the frame rate, just as flying in sparsely populated areas will increase it, but the transitions seem much more gradual and less choppy than in other flight simulators.

To achieve that ideal balance between eye candy and performance, you're given control over a wide variety of settings such as texture resolution, screen resolution, the number of trees, buildings and roads to draw, the number of cars to render on the roads, the distance at which to render details, the complexity of water reflections, the complexity of shadow rendering, the number of "puffs" to draw on clouds and a host of others.

For the serious student, the PC can be networked with a "master machine" controlled by an instructor who can remotely send instructions, monitor the pilot's flight set weather conditions and even cause aircraft system failures for the student pilot to deal with.

For the aviation engineer, a host of technical data can be displayed including speeds, thrust vectors, drag, lift, ground effects, and much more.

X-Plane 10 comes with an aircraft editor and an airfoil editor which, combined, can be used to create any aircraft you wish for the simulation. A scenery editor is not included, but one can be download for free.

The Bad
What with 8 DVD-ROMs worth of scenery, you'd think that X-Plane's virtual world would be packed with cities, buildings and famous landmarks, wouldn't you? You'd be wrong! X-Plane's world scenery is oddly sparsely populated, at least out of the box. The first thing that jumps out at you is that major land-marks such as well-known buildings, are almost completely absent. No Sears Tower or John Hancock Center are to be found in Chicago. No Empire State Building or Chrysler building in Manhattan. No CN Tower in Toronto or Tour d'Eiffel in Paris. Seattle sports its famous Space Needle. As far as I've been able to determine, that's the only well-known building to be found in the default scenery.

In X-Plane's defence, its philosophy for modeling scenery is very different from that of its competition. Rather than attempting to accurately model real-world cities by placing real-world landmarks in them, X-Plane instead attempts to generate what its developers refer to as "plausible" scenery. This means that, if you're over a city, X-Plane will generate buildings and roads that look believable, in a general sense, given the size of the city. However none of it is based on what's in the real world. While I can appreciate the thinking behind this approach, it's still disconcerting to fly over San Francisco and not see any Coit Tower or Transamerica Pyramid. Also, while X-Plane does generate roads and houses within city limits, the spaces between them remains largely green. The effect is that even populous metropolises, such as Manhattan for example, look like farm or forest land with an unusually large numbers of houses and roads running through it rather than the concrete jungles that they are. In this reviewer's opinion, X-Plane's "plausible" scenery approach doesn't quite work; at least not in urban areas.

The airports are worse. Oh, they're correctly located and the runway and taxiway layouts seem reasonably accurate (to my layman's eye, at least) but, with only one or two exceptions, there are no building structures of any kind. No terminals, no hangars, no control towers. Airports are basically runways interlinked with taxiways but no sheltering structures of any kind. When I first noticed this, I seriously thought that something had gone wrong with the installation of the sim. I had to do some Googling before I discovered that, apparently, airports aren't "supposed" to include any structures. For a sim that pays such meticulous attention to detail in other areas, this just blew my mind!

The sparse scenery can be corrected as there are plentiful add-ons, both freeware and payware, that add buildings to airports and familiar landmarks and structures to cities, but you have to find them and install them yourself.

One other note; you cannot collide with scenery objects such as buildings, elevated roadways or even trees. Hit one of these and you'll fly or taxi right through them. You can crash into the ground (including hills and mountains) but you can't crash into objects on the ground.

There are also no seasonal textures. It snows in the wintertime, but apparently that snow never accumulates on the ground. Roads remain bare and forests and farmland remain as green as if it were mid July all year round. Neither do trees ever change color.

ATC is simulated, but the voices and variety of radio chatter are as sparse as are the scenery landmarks. There are only two voices; a male voice for the tower (all towers) and a female voice for the pilot (all pilots) including yourself (the person flying the sim). This makes it sometimes hard to distinguish who it is you're hearing. Further, nomenclature is very basic. Airports identify themselves only by their ICAO designations, not by name. It's "Kilo Oscar Romeo Delta", not "O'Hare'. The controller who's speaking (or whom you're calling) is equally generic. It's either 'Tower' or 'Center', never 'Ground', 'Approach' or even just 'Traffic'. Finally, the purpose of the communication is often left unstated. Contact the tower for taxi clearance, for example, and all you'll hear is, "Tower, November One Seven Two Sierra Papa". As opposed to "Tower, November One Seven Two Sierra Papa with Foxtrot, ready to taxi". Whenever the pilot voice stops after identifying itself in this manner, I half expect the tower to reply with something like "Yes, what can I do for you?"

I mentioned earlier that there is a caveat if you want to upgrade from the Regional: North America version to the Global Edition, as I did. While the upgrade did, technically, add the entire world scenery to my simulation, if I switch my location from the North American continent to Europe or Asia, or back the other way, I suddenly get an error message telling me there is no scenery for the region that I've switched to. The only way to get the scenery back is to exit the sim and re-install the scenery upgrade. This is not as intrusive as it may sound, because I don't have to re-insert all 8 DVD's. I only have to re-insert the first DVD after which the Installer scans my scenery and suddenly "remembers" that it's already all there. After that, I'm fine until I change continents again. Still, the process takes several minutes and it's extremely irritating to have to pull out my upgrade DVD's and re-install the scenery every time I change continents. I can only assume that this is a bug. I've reported it to Laminar Research (X-Plane's developers) but I've received no feedback at all. Demerit points for support!

Although there is other computer-controlled (A.I.) air traffic, it seems much sparser than in other sims. Further, like the buildings and trees that populate the scenery, you can fly or taxi right through A.I. controlled aircraft and no collision is ever detected.

The Bottom Line
The design philosophy behind X-Plane appears to have been to focus on aircraft and flight. Scenery is a secondary consideration; almost an afterthought. The inability to collide with objects and A.I. traffic also betrays a design philosophy that admonishes "You're here to fly, not to look at a lot of pretty buildings or crash into them!"

Like many others, I was weaned on Microsoft's Flight Simulator series and I've been a long time fan of that franchise. I only decided to try X-Plane after Microsoft decided to stop developing Flight Simulator. Because I wanted to evaluate X-Plane on its own merits, I've purposely avoided comparing it with the latest version of Microsoft's simulator (Flight Simulator X). That having been said, I'm sure there are other long-time MS Flight Simulator aficionados like myself who may be wondering whether or not to try X-Plane now that the Microsoft franchise has reached its end.

Having now tried X-Plane for several months, I have to admit that there are things about FSX that I sometimes miss, especially the real-world scenery and the varied and robust ATC chatter. FSX remains installed on my PC and I still fire it up on occasion; yet not as much as I used to, and not as often as X-Plane.

For all of its shortcomings, X-Plane is a robust flight simulation. The ability to add on custom scenery helps to make up for the shortcomings of the default scenery. X-Plane still has a lot of unrealized potential. What it does well, it does exceedingly well. Unfortunately, this makes its weaknesses that much more glaring. For me, it's sort of a love/hate relationship.

It's fitting that X-Plane was originally designed for Linux, because its design reflects some of the same bare-bones, do-it-yourself philosophy that seem to underpin the Linux operating system itself. You're given the basics, and what's there works well. You can add on, embellish and customize to your heart's content, but that's up to you.

If you're a reasonably hard-core aviation enthusiast who's more interested in simulating the experience of flying than in entertainment, and if you don't mind spending some time (and possibly money) tweaking and installing add-ons, then you'll like X-Plane. Otherwise, you'd better stick with Microsoft's FSX. Mind you, X-Plane has the advantage that development and support continue and it will continue to evolve.

By Halmanator on March 30, 2013

Microsoft Flight (Windows)

What Happened To My Flight Simulator???

The Good
It's pretty. And it's free. You can download and install the basic version of Microsoft Flight (MS Flight), either through Microsoft's Games for Windows Live or XBox Live or through Valve's Steam for absolutely no money whatsoever. That gets you two airplanes; the amphibious Icon A5, a light sport craft, and a classic Boeing PT-17 Stearman biplane to fly over Oahu, Hawaii's largest island. No other aircraft or locations are available out of the box. More can be downloaded but that's when price tags start to appear. To this I say "Fair enough".

Graphically, the simulation is attractive. Ground textures are fairly detailed, although there is still some blurring and graininess at low altitudes. At the highest settings, buildings, trees and other objects on the ground are densely populated. Microsoft's flight sims have long had a tendency to suffer from short pauses as additional scenery was dynamically loaded and distant objects tended to "pop" into view. These shortcomings are now noticeably absent. Water textures look lovely, realistically rippling and reflecting clouds and sunlight. Aircraft are modeled in exquisite detail and cast realistic, dynamic shadows on themselves and even into the cockpit. Scenery can be seen reflected on shiny aluminium panels. Overall, I would rate the visual quality several notches over that of Flight Simulator X (FSX), Microsoft's previous flight simulation. I was able to achieve a smooth frame rate with all graphical options at their maximum settings on an Intel Core I7-2600 CPU, an ATI Radeon HD 5800 GPU and 6 GB of RAM. Unfortunately, I can't say precisely what my frame rate was, because there is no longer any facility for displaying it.

Flight physics are quite similar to those of FSX. Stalls are accurately modeled and it seems to me that spins, both controlled and uncontrolled, are easier to achieve than they used to be. Propeller torque is also modeled at the higher realism settings.

The Bad
While the quality of the graphics has improved, the rest of the simulation has been gutted. Gone are computer-controlled A.I. aircraft and interactive airports with working gates and support vehicles. Gone too is the ability to fly over any location around the globe, at least out of the box. The basic sim comes with only one location; Hawaii's Oahu island. You can purchase other locations as add-ons, but many locations are simply not available. Whether or not they will be in time probably depends upon Microsoft's perceived demand for them. At the time of this writing, you could add the other Hawaiian islands and a region in Alaska. That's it. If you want to fly in any other state, let alone any other country, you're out of luck for the time being.

Different weather settings are available, including crystal-clear skies, light or heavy clouds, dense fog and thunderstorms. Weather is static, however, and does not change once set. Dynamic and real-world weather, long a staple of the Flight Simulator franchise, is gone. Snow also appears to be completely absent (well, you're stuck in Hawaii, after all).

Oahu does look admittedly pretty from the air. Roads and airports are attractively rendered, if you can ignore the fact that they are totally uninhabited. There's not a car or truck to be seen anywhere. The only boats in the water appear to be docked. There's nothing to be seen away from shore. The would-be pilot soon gets the eerie feeling that he has been somehow transported to some weird recreation of Oahu island that is totally uninhabited. Simulated flying hasn't felt this lonely since Flight Simulator 3 back in 1988. On-line, multi-player play is supported, but you'd need an awful lot of other virtual pilots out there to begin to rival the air traffic provided by A.I. aircraft in previous sims, especially at supposedly busy airports.
Presumably because there's no-one else in the world to talk to, Microsoft saw no need for radios. There is no ATC (Air Traffic Control) communication of any kind. You can chat with other pilots via text messages or your microphone in multi-player mode, but you can't talk to any control towers.

Aside from a magnetic compass, there are also no navigational instruments. CDI, RMI, ADF, VOR and OMI are all MIA, to say nothing of GPS instrumentation. This sim is clearly not intended for cross-country flying.

While flight physics seem reasonably realistic, aircraft seem easier to control and to fly overall than they were in FSX, even with the flight realism settings maxed out. Crashes can happen, but you really have to hit the ground (or an obstacle) hard. Bumpy landings are almost always forgiven and I even managed to clip a tree-top while flying a little too low with nary a consequence except for an audible "bump"; this with the realism settings maxed out. Airplane damage doesn't appear to happen. You either total your plane, or you don't even scratch it.

Since you acquire MS Flight by downloading it, there is no printed manual. This might be forgiven if the sim came with the kind of extensive on-line help and documentation that we've come to expect from the Flight Simulator franchise. Sadly, this isn't the case. I was completely unable to find any sort of on-line help. The only way in which I was able to glean some idea as to how things might work was by selecting "Options", going to the keyboard control assignment screen and reviewing what keys do what.

The Bottom Line
The goal behind the design of MS Flight appears to have been to make it appeal to a wider audience than Microsoft's previous flight sims; especially the beginner and casual sim flier. Unfortunately, this design betrays a complete lack of understanding on Microsoft's part of their flight simulation customers. They've improved the eye candy while gutting practically everything else good about their flagship simulation.

It reasonably simulates the visuals and physics of flying an airplane, but it hobbles the experience by forcing you to do it in silent, lifeless world and it leaves out activities that are part of the civilian aviation experience such as ATC communications, point-to-point navigation, as well as approach and departure patterns to name but a few. Until now, Microsoft's flight simulators could arguably claim to be a learning and practice tool for actual student pilots between in-cockpit lessons. MS Flight cannot make this claim. Serious amateur pilots will find it too incomplete and bereft of features, while casual fliers will find too little entertainment value to keep them interested, and the lack of advanced features all but nullifies the chance that the casual and the curious might develop an interest in, or an appreciation for, the art and science of flight.

Admittedly, I've tried only the basic, "free" game. Perhaps the experience improves once one purchases a few add-ons. Even if this is so, the trouble with this sales strategy is that you need to engage your audience in order to entice them to spend money on those add-ons, and MS Flight simply isn't engaging enough, in this reviewer's humble option.

It's a good thing that Flight Simulator X was designed to be so open-ended and expandable. At least serious virtual pilots still have a venue for to satisfying their aviation cravings.

By Halmanator on July 3, 2012

Peggle (Windows)

Pachinko Extreme

The Good
You've got to hand it to the folks at Pop Cap games. They have a real knack for designing casual games that are fun, engrossing and keep the player coming back for more.

As with all of Popcap's most successful games, the basic gameplay concept behind Peggle is a simple one. Fire a ball at a screen full of pegs. The basic goal is to hit all of the orange pegs before you run out of shots.

The look and feel of the game is reminiscent of a Pachinko or a pinball machine, except that the ball is fired from the top down rather than from the bottom up, you control the initial direction (aim) of the ball rather than the power with which it's launched, and the pegs disappear after they are hit. A bucket slides back and forth at the bottom of the screen. Land your ball in the bucket, and you get it back for an extra shot. If you enjoy Pachinko or pinball, you'll like Peggle.

The presentation is flawless. Attractive, colorful graphics are complemented by an up-beat, slightly techno musical soundtrack that never irritates. Successfully finish a level and your skill is celebrated by a brilliant display of rainbows and fireworks with a triumphant chorus singing "Ode to Joy" from Beethoven's Ninth symphony. Narrowly miss that last orange peg on the board and you hear the sound of your unseen audience gasping in exasperation as the "Fever Cam" zooms in for a closeup, slow-motion view of just how near the ball came to hitting the peg. Sound effects, from balls bouncing off of pegs to button clicks to congratulatory flourishes, are appropriate and pleasing.

All of Popcap's usual user-friendly conveniences are present and accounted for. Music and sound effect volume is fully user-configurable. The game can be played either fullscreen or windowed. There's even a colorblind mode for those who can't tell orange pegs from green ones. Especially impressive (or lucky) trick shots can be saved to be replayed for admiring friends later on. For the stats buffs, a full set of stats is compiled as you play, keeping track not only of high scores but your personal best scores, the total number of shots taken, free balls earned, style shots, your best scoring shot ever, number of challenges finished and more.

The in-game help tells you everything you need to know about the game, but the first few levels are tutorial in nature so that you can skip the help and learn by playing. Hints for improving your game play are offered at the completion of each level. Each player is tracked by name and progress is automatically saved as the game progresses. Leave the game and return later, and you are taken to the same level at which you left off.

As you play, you are mentored by a cast of ten Peggle Masters. Each one gives you a special power-up which is invoked by hitting one of two green pegs on the board. Bjorn Unicorn gives you a Super Guide which shows exactly where the ball will bounce to after hitting a peg. Jimmy Lightning, the beaver, gives you Multiball, which clones your ball so that there are multiple balls bouncing around the pegs, rather than just one. Kat Tut turns the bucket at the bottom of the screen into a much wider pyramid, making extra balls much easier to get. Splork, the alien, gives you Space Blast, which causes an explosion that takes out all pegs within a certain radius. Claude the lobster gives you claw flippers, turning Pachinko into pinball. Renfield the Jack-o-lantern gives you Spooky Ball, a second ball that drops onto the game board, hitting more pegs after your initial ball falls off the screen. Tula the sunflower gives you Flower Power, which marks several orange pegs within the vicinity of a green peg as having been hit. Warren the rabbit gives you Lucky Spin; a random bonus that can be anything from an extra ball to triple points to one of the other Peggle Masters' power-ups. Lord Cinterbottom, the dragon, gives you Fireball, which destroys all pegs that it hits without bouncing or changing direction. Finally, Master Hu, the owl, gives you Zen Ball, which automatically adjusts your shot, turning it into a better shot. As with all the best games, Peggle is simple on the surface, but full of subtle intricacies, which these ten Peggle Masters reveal. When you can snatch the Peggle from their hands (or paws or tentacles as the case may be) it will be time for you to leave, Grasshopper!

Or will it? Even after completing the basic levels that comprise the Adventure (campaign) game and earning your Peggle Master trophy, there are additional Master challenges with more difficult requirements, such as clearing every peg on the board, rather than just the orange ones or getting a minimum score for a given level. Finish all these for a promotion from Master to Grand Master. Clear all the pegs from every level in the game and earn the coveted title of Extreme Grand Master. There's even a Duel Mode in which you can play against one of the ten computer-controlled Peggle Masters or against a friend. All in all, there's lots of replay value here.

The Bad
What's not to like? If I had to nit-pick, I suppose a level editor might have been a nice addition but, honestly, I can find no real flaws with this game.

The Bottom Line
Peggle is Pachinko on steroids. If you get a kick out of bouncing balls off of pegs with lots of bells and whistles and if you enjoy casual games that can be played in short sittings, this one's for you.

By Halmanator on January 12, 2010

Superstar Ice Hockey (DOS)

A good early effort, but you can never go back.

The Good
Long before Electronic Arts' NHL Hockey series became the thousand-pound gorilla on the block, there was Mindscape's Superstar Ice Hockey. For such an early effort (released for DOS in 1987), a lot of the elements that we've come to expect in a modern computerized hockey game were there.

Player control: Check! Coaching options: Check! Team management and trading options: Check! Adjustable rules such as offsides: Check! Adjustable period, season and playoff lengths: Check!

The first time that you start the game, you're asked to create a team for yourself to manage. You can also decide which of the four divisions your team belongs to. You can choose the number of games per season (four, seven or eleven), the playoff length for each division (best of one, best of three or best of five), the conference playoff length (best of one, three or five) and the playoff length for the SportTime Cup (best of one, three or five).

For individual games, you can select the number of minutes per period (between 5 and 20). Practice (exhibition) games are available or you can play out an entire season in League play. In fact, your team's stats, as well as those of the other teams, are tracked over several seasons.

For Practice games, you can select the number of players on the ice (two, four or six) but for League games there must be six players on the ice.

In between League games, you can play coach and adjust your lineups, or put on your G.M. hat and improve your team by recruiting new players, attempting to trade with other teams or sending your team to training camp. When the metal hits the ice, you can choose to play the game, or just sit back and let the computer control your team. During pauses in play, you can be coach again, selecting your lines and dictating your team's strategy (normal, aggressive or defensive).

On the ice, players generally play fairly intelligently. They will pass the puck back and forth, rather than hogging it. They will body check opposing players who are in possession of the puck. They use a variety of shot styles on net, from sliding wristers to slap shots that head for the cross bar. Goalies will drop onto their pads to stop a sliding puck or jut out glove to catch a flying one. Sometimes they almost seem to stand on their heads. Player animation isn't bad, given the small size and simplicity of the player models.

Player morale and fatigue are also factored in. Players tire as they play, but a goal will fire them up and give them an extra burst of energy.

Penalty times are adjusted based on period length. If a regular twenty-minute period length is chosen, penalties are two minutes. If only a five-minute period length is chosen, penalties are only thirty seconds. The ratio remains at 1/10 the total period length. Interestingly, all penalties are minor. There don't seem to be any five-minute (or 1/4 period) penalties and fights never occur.

When a penalty or offsides is called during play, you're treated to a full-screen picture of a rather comical-looking referee and the nature of the call. The expression of the referee changes seemingly at random; sometimes he grins from ear to ear, sometimes he looks angry, sometimes he looks downright puzzled. I imagine that the expressions were done to add some variety to the game. I personally find them amusing, if not always appropriate.

One aspect of the package that deserves particular mention is the game manual. This game comes with an excellent manual that fully explains all aspects of the game including game controls, on-screen displays and their meanings and even the various strategies. The game manual out-shines those offered by many more modern hockey games which explain only the rudimentary controls but leave out many of the finer details.

The Bad
Although you can create and manage your own team, you don't have the option of simply choosing one of the 16 existing teams to manage for some odd reason. It would have been nice to have this choice.

When playing a game, you have the option to control only the center and/or the goalie. Defence and forwards are always computer controlled. This contrasts with more recent computer hockey games that allow you to control every player on the ice (usually the one with the puck, or the one closest to it, if the other team is in possession).

Although those who are more interested in coaching and managing than they are in arcade action can delegate full player control to the computer, there is no option for simply simulating the outcome of a game and skipping the actual play entirely. This again differs from more recent offerings.

While you can turn the offsides rule on or off, there is no mention of the two-line pass rule, and you can't turn penalty calls on or off, nor can you adjust the strictness or lenience of your referee (i.e. how likely he is to call penalties).

The graphics, of course, can't compare with more modern offerings. However, compared with those of other sports games released during that era, they are serviceable. CGA and EGA are supported. All players look alike except for jersey colors to differentiate the opposing teams. Even in EGA mode, you have a choice of only two jersey colors; red or blue. If you happen to like green or yellow, you're out of luck.

There are no jersey numbers and player names are not indicated on the ice. Interestingly, your players do have unique IDs. You can see them in the coaching and management screens. However, once on the ice, you have no idea who's who unless you happen to know who plays which position by memory. Also, individual player stats are not tracked, so you can't tell who your top scorers are or who has the best +/- ratings.

When players are body checked, they tend to fall down and spin comically on their butts. Trouble is, they do this for a little too long. Many a time have I seen a forward get knocked on his keester behind the enemy blue line and then cause his team to get called offsides simply because the puck went back to the other side of the blue line and he was unable to get back on his feet before it crossed into the opposing team's zone again.

Line changes are not possible during play unless you call a timeout and you have only a limited number of these (is this hockey or football?) If your players are getting tired and you've used up your timeouts, they'll just have to wait for a whistle. Also, there doesn't seem to be an option to pull the goalie and put an extra attacker on the ice in the last minute or two of play if your team is behind by a goal.

NHL licensing is completely absent. All player names are fictitious. Don't look for any of your favorite 1987 stars. Teams are referred to only by city name; Toronto, Detroit, Montreal, etc. NHL team names are absent. Even the Stanley Cup is M.I.A. It's the SportTime Cup for you, my friend!

The Bottom Line
I remember thoroughly enjoying Superstar Ice Hockey when it was first released. In spite of its flaws, it was great fun. I welcomed the chance to relive old memories now that programs like DOS Box make it possible for me to once again play this game. However, I'm afraid I've been spoiled by modern technology. Today, Superstar Ice Hockey has some nostalgic value, but it just can't hold my interest for very long. Still, in its day, it was king of the ice.

By Halmanator on December 19, 2007

Duke Nukem 3D (DOS)

The Most Original and Fun FPS Yet

The Good
Normally, I make it a habit not to contribute a review for a game that more than 3 other MobyGames members have already reviewed. At the time of this writing, there are 17 previous reviews for Duke Nukem 3D (DN3D). Still, in this case, I must make an exception.

First-person shooters for the PC had already been been done to death when DN3D was released, and there have since been many more FPS games that have been technically superior. They look better, they sound better, they have better multi-player support, they feature in-game cut-scenes and scripted events. But none of them holds a candle to DN3D from a pure gameplay point of view, in my humble opinion.

How many games since DN3D have gone beyond the tired old "bigger, badder gun" weapons formula and come up with anything as innovative as a freeze gun, that freezes your opponents solid so that you can shatter them with a single bullet, or even a kick or a bare-knuckled punch? Or a shrink gun that shrinks your enemies to the size of a mouse so that you can squish them under your heels? Or counter-measures like the HoloDuke; a decoy that lures your enemies out of hiding in order to attack a mere holographic projection of yourself?

The environments are almost totally interactive. See a light switch? Turn it on or off. A movie projector? Same deal. Use that closed circuit monitor to see where the bad guys are hiding. Pee in that urinal. Blow up that fire hydrant and drink from the water fountain gushing from its remains. Doing this even increases your health by a point! Walk over a recently-dispatched foe and track bloody footprints across the floor. See a pool table? Knock the balls around! A pinball machine? Play with that.

The level design is also excellent. Levels are interesting and believable. The adult movie theatre has an arcade, bathrooms, a ticket booth, a projection room and a concession counter. Levels aren't just a bunch of haphazardly thrown-together rooms. There's a logic behind their design.

Levels are also nicely varied. Some levels are indoor "corridor crawls". Others cover wide open expanses with mountains and ridges. Others have deep pools of water that must be explored.

There's a non-linearity to the level design. There are always lots of areas to explore and lots of secret areas to find. You're not corralled into following a single, linear path as is the case with many more recent shooters.

There are all kinds of tongue-in-cheek pop-culture references; an area featuring what looks like the corpse of Indiana Jones, an area containing the monolith from "2001: A Space Odyssey" (complete with the choir as you approach the monolith), a level that's layed out like the interior of a starship from Star Trek and more.

DN3D had no compunctions against poking fun at its rivals of the day. One hidden area features a dead Space Marine from the original "Doom" and you can even blow up Id Software's headquarters.

The game is unashamedly politically-incorrect. Levels are rife with adult movie theatres, pornographic peep-shows, strip clubs, stag shops and half-naked women in bondage. Cops are portrayed as wild pigs with "L.A.R.D." stenciled on the backs of their flak jackets (an obvious satire on the L.A.P.D.) Duke struts around, grunting challenges like "Come get some!" and "Suck it down!" This is a game for adult males to work off some of that extra testosterone. Women and children need not apply.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a proponent of games or any other media that objectifies or stereotypes women. But DN3D flaunts its political incorrectness. "Let us guys have our guilty pleasures!" it veritably cries, "We don't hassle you about Oprah, do we?"

I for one prefer DN3D's unabashed honesty to more recent games that feature overly-endowed, scantily-clad female "heroines" running around waving broadswords.

DN3D does give ample warning of its baser sensibilities. It says "Warning: Adult Content" right there on the title screen before the game even begins. You don't like it? Play something else. There is also a parental lock feature, for parents who don't mind little Johnny blowing up aliens, but want to shield him from the nasty stuff.

Most of all, DN3D is FUN! It is hands-down the single most fun FPS that I have ever played, and it's right up there in my top five list of most fun games ever, of any genre.

The Bad
By today's standards (2006), the graphics certainly look dated, especially the 2D character sprites. However, they were good enough given the technology of the time.

Sound is also a little weak; especially the music which sounds very FM synthesized, in spite of MIDI cards being supported. It's not that it's bad; it's just underwhelming.

Although the environments are generally very interactive, there are still boarded-up or locked doors that you can't take out, even with a rocket launcher. In fact, there are some doors that you can't destroy with your rocket launcher, but which open to a gentle push! Huh??? This is a common level-design flaw which completely shatters the suspension of disbelief and jarringly reminds you that you are, after all, just playing a game.

While it's cool that you can gain health by drinking from a fountain or a fire hydrant, you can actually restore yourself to full health by doing this. It actually becomes a form of cheat! The game designers should have limited how much health you can accumulate in this way. Better yet, after drinking a certain amount of water, they should have caused the health to start gradually dropping until you could find a toilet or urinal to use!

The Bottom Line
Duke Nukem 3D stands as a shining example of how to incorporate good gameplay and plain, old-fashioned fun into a first-person shooter design. I can only hope that Duke Nukem Forever's seemingly indefinite delay is owing to 3D Realms taking the time to get it right once again. If they can bring the game up to today's technical standards and maintain the gameplay and the fun factor, they'll have a juggernaut on their hands.

By Halmanator on August 6, 2006

Pocket Tanks (Windows)

A Good Game with So Much More Potential

The Good
Sure, Pocket Tanks is yet another incarnation of a game that has been around almost since electronic gaming meant spelling funny words on your calculator by reading the numbers upside-down. However, this game is a very good implementation of the concept, in the same sense that Starfleet I: The War Begins! was a great implementation of the classic Star Trek "Search And Destroy" game.

The best thing about Pocket Tanks is the weapons. There are a host of original weapons, each with its own unique effects (both visual and gameplay-oriented). Like the classic "Rock/Paper/Scissors" game, pretty much every attack can be countered or nullified. Some weapons, if used incorrectly, may backfire, doing more damage to the user than to the target, or unintentionally shielding the target from future attacks.

The graphics are simple, yet functional and some of the weapons effects are truly amusing. The sounds are likewise serviceable, though not dazzling.

A single round of Pocket Tanks takes about 5 minutes to play - perfect when you want a quickie gaming fix and don't have the time to spend on more involved fare.

The game has been designed to be expandable. It ships with 30 weapons, but extra weapons packs are available, some for free! Developer BlitWise Productions shows a refreshing appreciation for its customers by throwing out the occasional freebie. The expansion packs help to prolong the life of the game.

The Bad
The only criticism that I have for Pocket Tanks is all of the things that are missing. As good as it is, this game could be so much better.

Each time I start the game, I have to re-enter my name. Why can't it remember who I am?

Also, there is no high score table. Why not keep track of high scores?

And how come a round is limited to a two-tank one-on-one match-up? Why can't there be 3 or 4 or more tanks?

Two-player "hot-seat" play is supported, but why not modem/network/internet play?

Finally, the A.I. for computer-controlled tanks has two irritating flaws: The first is that A.I.-controlled tanks never move. Sometimes, a tank will get into a position from which it's impossible to hit the opponent (for example, when its opponent drops a wall two pixels in front of its turret). When this happens, it's often possible to move the tank to a new location from which a hit is possible (i.e. back away from the wall a bit). This is such a strategic gameplay element that each player only has a limited number of moves, yet the computer A.I. never uses any of its moves! If it can't make the shot, it simply wastes it. I've even seen it fire a projectile straight up into the air, only to have it come straight back down and land on itself! A.I. doesn't get much dumber than that.

Secondly, the computer A.I. is obviously programmed to try for a direct hit on its opponent, regardless of what weapon it's using. However, some weapons do more collateral damage by landing near the target than they do with a direct hit, but the A.I. never accounts for this.

Also, the A.I. fires every weapon like it was a projectile weapon, prone to the effects of gravity. However, some weapons are beam or point-to-point weapons and are best aimed directly at the target. Some are even designed to be fired through obstacles such as mountains. The A.I. never uses such weapons correctly and invariably wastes them.

The Bottom Line
Reading through my laundry list of complaints, you'd almost think I hate this game. I don't. I actually quite like it. But it could have been so much more! Are you listening, BlitWise?

Note: This review was on the 1.0 version.

By Halmanator on April 28, 2006

Star Trek: Bridge Commander (Windows)

Good Presentation, Flawed Game Play

The Good
The story is intriguing and well-written; a worthy bit of Star Trek fiction. You are cast in the role of first officer on the U.S.S. Dauntless, a Galaxy class starship investigating some anomalous solar activity in the Vesuvi system. While in the system, the ship's captain takes a shuttle to rendez-vous with a Federation terraforming outpost. As the shuttle approaches the outpost, the core of the Vesuvi system's star suddenly and inexplicably destabilizes. The captain orders you to get the ship out of danger, just before his shuttle is engulfed in a solar explosion. Hence the reason for your sudden promotion to captain.

As the Dauntless leaves the system, the science officer notices a strange object warping out of the system but he is unable to identify it. Suspicions abound that the Cardassians have something to do with this mysterious turn of events. Now in command of the Dauntless, you are ordered by Starfleet Command on a series of investigative missions aimed at discovering what happened in the Vesuvi system. The various missions serve to unfold the plot and the entire thing remains intriguing throughout.

The interface is extremely well designed in my opinion. Next Generation style LCARS panels are overlayed over a first-person 3D view of the bridge. In contrast with earlier Star Trek based simulations, you don't jump around between different control panels here. You never lose sight of your bridge and crew. The LCARS panels are there when you need them and move quickly out of your way when you don't. This interface is the most successful that I've seen so far in terms of making you feel like you're in the captain's chair overseeing the bridge and crew rather than jumping around from station to station micro-managing everything.

The graphics, in my opinion, are attractive overall. Bridge layouts are accurate, if simplified. Starship exteriors are nicely modeled. Light sourcing and specular highlights are used to good effect. There is a nice glow effect for lit windows, phaser beams and warp nacells and shields shimmer semi-translucently when absorbing hits.

There was an interesting design decision regarding the faces of the characters. Bitmapped character faces are pasted onto the heads of the character models. The mouths are animated when characters speak but, other than this, there is little facial animation. Eyes don't blink and expressions remain neutral. The result is characters that are instantly recognizable (Picard looks like Picard and Data looks like Data) but there is no real lip synching and character faces seem bland and expressionless, almost like everybody is wearing some kind of mask. The features also tend to look somewhat angular at times. This is something that I, personally, can live with, especially remembering that this game was released in 2002, when graphical hardware was not as advanced as it is now.

Sound is also nicely rendered. Phasers and torpedoes sound as they do in the television shows and movies. The voices of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Lt. Commander Data are provided by Patrick Steward and Brent Spiner respectively. Voice acting for other characters (not seen on TV or in the movies) is likewise competent and believable. The musical soundtrack is typical for a Star Trek feature, grand and orchestral with a more dramatic cadence during battle engagements.

The Bad
Some of the missions are designed to be ridiculously hard, pitting your ship alone against hoards of enemy attackers with little or no support from Starfleet. What's worse, the penalty for getting out of some of these scenarios alive yet failing your primary objective is an unreasonably harsh dressing down by the Starfleet admiralty who, in my opinion, should really be impressed that you even managed to save your ship and crew, never mind knock out that enemy sensor array. Likewise you can successfully complete mission after mission, being lauded and praised by your superiors after each victory, only to be dismissed as an incompetent fool when you finally do fail. I guess it's true what they say; people really do remember your last mistake. One wonders, at times, whether one hasn't been unwittingly drafted into the service of the Imperial Klingon Fleet. Total and unqualified success, death or dishonour! Those are your options.

The mission structure suffers from the same weakness seen in Larry Holland's Star Wars games; namely, they are linear and heavily scripted and some are designed such that success depends on performing certain actions in a certain sequence or at a certain time. Doing anything else inevitably results in failure, and this makes several of the missions feel more like puzzles to be solved rather than tactical situations to be evaluated. It's no coincidence that failed missions are more successful the second or third time around, once you have the benefit of foreknowledge of what's going to happen.

I've read some other reviews of this game which complain about the inability to skip the cut scenes. I'd like to clarify this issue by pointing out that, although the cut scenes can't be skipped entirely, it is possible to skip to the next line of dialog by pressing the backspace key. Do this shortly after each line of dialog begins and it is possible to "skip forward" through all cut scenes quite quickly. Still, I do agree that it would have been nice if there had been a key to skip directly to the end of a cut scene or, better yet, a config setting allowing cut scenes to be turned off, or at least to be played only the first time through. This could have been handled better, but it's not as bad as some would have us believe.

The characters seem to blindly follow their scripts at times without any regard for what actually happens in the game. For example, at the start of one mission, my first officer recommended that we should return to the starbase for repair and resupply, even though:

a) We were already at the starbase b) They had just told us that they could only re-supply but not repair us. c) We had just finished docking and our supplies had been replenished.

Similarly, characters sometimes react to occurrences without considering the full situation. For example, in the heat of one particular space battle, my weapons officer targeted an enemy ship with photon torpedoes. The torpedoes failed to lock properly and missed their target, unfortunately hitting a friendly starbase that was beyond the target. My first officer reacted by promptly relieving me of command for firing on a friendly, apparently oblivious to the fact that I had never given any command to attack the starbase nor had I personally fired the errant torpedoes, never mind that the whole thing was obviously an unfortunate mishap. I might have understood had she decided to relieve the weapons officer for incompetence, I suppose.

Engagements between starships can last quite some time. It takes a while to destroy or disable a starship, unless the combatants are woefully mismatched. Your weapons officer will normally make intelligent decisions such that, with only a few exceptions, you can usually allow him to select his own targets and systems and such. This is as it should be. It does mean, however, that you can spend much of your time during battles, especially prolonged engagements involving multiple starships from various sides, simply watching the battle unfold. You might occasionally order your chief engineer to channel more power to the shields or the weapons or whatever system seems most important at the time but, other than this, you need do very little. This can make missions seem rather dull to some. On the other hand, you can manually take control of the ship and do all the fighting yourself, but this seems less in keeping with the Star Trek mythos, and you'll usually do no better than your weapons officer would have, in any case.

One graphical effect that bothered me more than the weird, angular faces of the characters was the fact that starships insist on belching smoke when damaged. Smoke in the vacuum of space? Whose idea was that? Fire, yes. Sparks, of course. But smoke? Methinks Larry Holland must have cannibalized his Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe engine when building this game and forgotten to kill the smoke effects.

The graphics engine also attempts to show exposed decks beneath punctured hulls on severely damaged vessels, but this doesn't quite work for me either. Somehow, the effect looks too much like a 2D bitmap. It was done much better in Interplay's Star Trek: Klingon Academy.

The Bottom Line
Star Trek: Bridge Commander does have its flaws but, overall, I enjoyed it. It's strength is in its presentation. Its weakness, unfortunately, is in the actual gameplay. Still, I think it fair to say that it comes as close to simulating the experience of commanding a Federation starship as any Star Trek game has to date, even if it doesn't entirely hit the mark.

By Halmanator on December 31, 2005

Atari: 80 Classic Games in One! (Windows)

A Blast From the Past for Computer Gaming Fans

The Good
Eighty games is a lot to sift through. Fortunately, Digital Eclipse helps us out by grouping them into nine categories: Sports Games, Adventure Games, Atari Arcade Originals, Arcade at Home, Space Games, Racing Games, Mind Games, Action Games and Gambling Games.

Of these, the Atari Arcade Originals are definitely the best. Here you will find faithful ports of 18 original Atari coin-op games including Asteroids, Asteroids Deluxe, Battlezone, Black Widow, Centipede Crystal Castles, Gravitar, Liberator, Lunar Lander, Major Havoc, Millipede, Missile Command, Pong, Red Baron, Space Duel, Super Breakout, Tempest and Warlords. Sounds and graphics for each game are faithfully reproduced. It's just like playing the original coin op machine, especially since even the original cabinet artwork is represented. This can be turned off for a full-screen display, but I felt that the artwork gave each game a certain ambience that you just can't get from staring at a plain old computer monitor.

There are some nice extras thrown in as well that may be of special interest to computer gaming buffs (such as myself) with interests that go beyond currently available games and encompass the hobby as a whole, including its history. These include original box art for Atari 2600 ROM cartridges, digitized pictures of the full original manuals for the same, images of the original coin-op cabinets, promotional brochures, marketing materials, collector pins and other Atari memorabilia and snippets of interviews with Nolan Bushnell, the founder of Atari, considered by many to be the father of modern video games. MobyGames members are particularly likely to enjoy these extras.

The Bad
Most of the games, except for the ones listed under Atari Arcade Originals (above) are ports of Atari 2600 home system cartridge ROMs. As such, they are extremely primitive in both appearance and design. They may have some nostalgic or historical value, but I doubt that most people will spend too much time actually playing them.

The Bottom Line
This collection of Atari classics will have a special appeal for fans of the classic arcade games, nostalgia buffs and collectors. Gamers interested in only bleeding-edge technology need not apply.

By Halmanator on October 28, 2005

Space Taxi (Commodore 64)

What Do You Get When You Cross "Lunar Lander" With "Scramble"?

The Good
It's quite simple. This game is a blast. Fun! Fun! Fun! And addictive! Diabolically designed levels and a tricky physics engine combine to keep you playing "Just one more game" for hour after hour.

The graphics are nothing special. Pretty standard Commodore 64 fare, although I did get a kick out of the rocket-powered checkered cab.

Sounds are also standard for the '64. Digitized speech enables passengers to hail you with a "Hey, Taxi!" Safely deliver a passenger to his destination, and you get a hearty "Thanks!" Accidentally land on top of a passenger rather than next to him and he emits an indignant "Hey!" before disappearing and reappearing elsewhere.

The real hook that keeps you coming back for more and keeps you playing endlessly is the crafty level design. Platforms are placed on the other side of narrow corridors, just wide enough for your taxi to squeeze through. You need a very steady hand sometimes; touch a wall, and you're toast! Fuel depots are placed in hard-to-reach areas or far away from your passenger or destination, forcing you to decide between playing it safe and refueling or going for the time/money bonus.

Just when you feel like you've got the hang of the controls, along come levels that feature light or heavy gravity, and one level even reverses the controls completely! The stick movement that normally causes the taxi to go up, suddenly sends it down, and the left/right controls are backward as well. It's infuriating, and it's fun!

The Bad
Not much to dislike here. The graphics and sound, as I said, are mediocre. Once you've mastered all 25 levels, there's nothing more. A level editor would have given this game longer legs. Other than that, no complaints.

The Bottom Line
If you like side-scrolling arcade games with a puzzle solving element, Space Taxi's sure to please!

By Halmanator on October 21, 2005

MusicVR Episode 2: Maestro (Windows)

More of the same. Much more.

The Good
Most of my commentary will take the form of comparisons between Maestro and its predecessor, Tres Lunas, because the conceptual design of Maestro is very much like that of Tres Lunas. It therefore shares many of the same strengths and weaknesses of the earlier game. For a more generalized commentary about the game design itself, read my review of Tres Lunas (also on MobyGames.com). Most of what I said about Tres Lunas is also true of Maestro.

That having been said, Maestro is bigger and more refined than its predecessor in almost every way. The game world is larger; more expansive. Where Tres Lunas centered on a desert area, Maestro's central location is a huge spaceship, full of corridors, tubes, shafts and many rooms or compartments to explore. As in Tres Lunas, some portals take the player to places seemingly outside of the central environment. In fact, at one point, you wind up literally on the outside of the spaceship. Compared to Tres Lunas, there's simply more to see and do. Tres Lunas could be played from start to completion in a matter of minutes once you knew where to search for the golden rings. Maestro requires at least a solid hour of play, even when you know exactly where to go and what to do.

The goals in Maestro are more varied and complex than in Tres Lunas. Tres Lunas had only one goal; to find and collect seven golden rings. In Maestro, you collect "medals" (which look like giant, metallic pinwheels) instead. You must find and collect 24 of these medals. There are actually many more than 24 medals to be found and, in a rather clever twist, you must be careful not to collect too many medals, too quickly. Some rooms can only be accessed with a specific number of medals, with a minimum number of medals (no less than...) or with a maximum number of medals (no more than...). If you're carrying more than that number, you're out of luck. If you have too many, there are ways to reduce the number of medals being carried but it's not as simple as just dropping them at will. At one point in the game, you are actually required to give away all of the medals collected to that point in order to advance in the game. I consider this a very nice touch, which discourages a "horde everything" approach and requires the player to think strategically. Certain things are best done in a certain order.

Aside from the medals, another new wrinkle is the Gravitars. There are four of them and they must be found and deposited in a Gravitar Pen in the game. The finding of the Gravitars is the game's ultimate object. The medals are really just a means toward this end. The player who brings the last of the four Gravitars to the Pen becomes The Maestro, and is given access to a special Maestro Area. That player also has the option of inviting any of his/her on-line friends to the Maestro Area as well. In an on-line game, where multiple players work together to find all the Gravitars, this gives the player who retrieves the last Gravitar a way of sharing the reward with his/her comrades.

While searching for medals and Gravitars, you will encounter various games and puzzles that must be solved or completed. Some involve mazes which must be navigated, and/or objects (other than Gravitars or medals) which must be found or collected. Overall, the puzzles and challenges are more interesting and more fun than those presented in Tres Lunas.

The Bad
I'm inclined to be a little more critical of Maestro than I was of Tres Lunas because Tres Lunas had the advantage of being completely new and unique. Having played and completed Tres Lunas, my very first impression after spending my first hour with Maestro was one of "More of the same".

"Well, this is all very nice," I thought to myself, "but it's basically like Tres Lunas. It's been done."

The visuals are not significantly improved over those seen in Tres Lunas; there's just more of them. This is not entirely bad, as Tres Lunas was, itself, a fairly attractive bit of eye-candy.

The sound or, more accurately, the music, is another matter. As in Tres Lunas, most of the sound consists of snippits of Oldfield's music. The difference is that, where Tres Lunas consisted entirely of new and original music (in fact, it was released hand-in-hand with an entire music CD by the same name), much of the music in Maestro consists of excerpts from Oldfield's Tubular Bells 2003; a music CD which was released several months before Maestro. Again, this isn't an entirely bad thing. Tubular Bells (and the 2003 remake) have always been among my favorite albums, and having the familiar music complemented by Oldfield's computer-generated images is an interesting and enjoyable experience. However, once again, I've already heard this music. Been there, done that. Although the game does feature some new and original music by Oldfield, especially when one reaches the Maestro Area, I'd have liked to see more emphasis on that and less on a rehash of previously-released material.

When playing alone, the game has an empty, solitary feel to it. Yes, there are all these wonderful environments to wander through, but there's nobody in them. There are entities; horses, dinosaurs, a scorpion, a crab, a blind man and, of course, the elusive Gravitars, to name but a few, but none of them really interact with the player in any meaningful way. They simply wander along their preprogrammed paths, seemingly oblivious to your presence. The feeling is something akin to being Alice, wandering through a deserted Wonderland or, rather, a Wonderland in which she is ignored by everyone and everything she encounters.

Playing on-line doesn't help the situation much. The main reason for this is, I suspect, because the game hasn't garnered nearly the kind of following that Oldfield had hoped it would. Most of the time, there are few, if any, active game servers out there. When there are, they are sparsely-populated; the most I've ever seen in one game at any time is six players. For someone who had apparently hoped to see Maestro become "The world's most magnificent chat room", Oldfield must be fairly disappointed so far.

The sparse on-line community coupled with the game's increased size doesn't help the matter either. After spending three hours in the aforementioned six-player on-line game, I never actually saw any of them. I saw their messages being exchanged, but I never encountered any of their avatars. This is doubtless because, with such a big game world to explore, and so few people in it, odds against any two of them winding up in the same area at the same time are fairly big.

Finally, Maestro has no Save Game feature, and it needs one badly! I'm sure that the omission of a way in which to save one's progress and resume later on was a conscious design decision on Oldfield's part. In Tres Lunas, this was forgivable because the game world was smaller and, as I said, the game could be finished quite quickly once one knew where to look for the rings. However, having to start from scratch every time one begins a game in Maestro and then having to traverse areas that one has seen many times before, and see and do things that one has seen and done many times before, soon becomes simply tedious and frustrating.

The Bottom Line
Maestro has the same basic appeal and the same basic weaknesses as does Tres Lunas. If you played and enjoyed Tres Lunas, and you're not looking for something radically different this time around, then you will likely enjoy Maestro. If you've tried neither game but are intrigued enough to try at least one of them, go with Maestro. In my opinion, it's the better of the two games. To guard against disappointment, though, download and try out the free demo before committing any cash to Maestro. It will give you a fairly good feel for what the game is all about.

By Halmanator on April 28, 2004

MusicVR Episode 1: Tr3s Lunas (Windows)

It's not the destination, it's the journey that matters.

The Good
Mike Oldfield, the designer of "Tres Lunas" describes the gameplay experience as "Lucid Dreaming In 3D" and this is appropriate. Imagine being set loose in a world where the bizarre is commonplace and nothing is necessarily as it seems. You drift through this world, easily flying high over everything, or sinking to the ocean's depths without need of oxygen. Sail through a portal and you're suddenly in space, orbiting planets, skating among the stars. Next thing you know, you're scrabbling along amidst a colony of termites. Flit around with butterflies, soar with seagulls, frolick with dolphins. You just never know what will happen next.

The graphics are excellent, beautifully rendered in 3D, with nice use of lighting, reflections, transparencies and fog. Objects usually reveal more detail as you move closer to them. Many details that are not apparent from a distance are only revealed upon closer inspection. Nothing is mundane. Everything is worth exploring.

Interwoven with all this surrealistic imagery, there is music. Mike Oldfield's music. Oldfield's talent for creating expressive instrumentals that convey mood and feeling without need of lyrics is quite apparent here. The music complements the visuals, sometimes soft and relaxing, sometimes vibrant and fast-paced, sometimes powerful and grandiose and sometimes ominous and threatening depending on the situation.

The interface is simple and elegant. Move the mouse to point yourself at an object or destination. Press the left mouse button to move forward or speed up and the right mouse button to slow down or back up. That's it. At certain points in the game, you can release projectiles by pressing the space bar. The most awkward control combination you'll find is when you have to hold down the right mouse button and press the space bar simultaneously in order to release an "avatar".

Don't let the comment about releasing projectiles fool you into thinking that there's anything remotely violent in this game. The projectiles usually take the form of benign objects such as milkweed buds, flowers or gold nuggets. Projectiles aren't intended to be used as weapons, rather they serve as a means of manipulating or combining objects. There are a few projectiles that could be construed as weapons, such as boomerangs and arrows for example, but using these maliciously (shooting them at other people or creatures, for example) will result in "punishment" which, in this game, usually means getting sent back to "The Origin", where the cactus will now usually be burning and the volcano erupting, just to convey the message that you've done something naughty.

There's nothing stressful or menacing about this game. There's no evil to defeat, no villain to fight, no world to save, no puzzle to unravel. You simply explore, looking for pleasant sights and sounds. After a little exploration and experimentation, if you've got the right idea, you'll find that the world around you is gradually becoming a nicer place, just by virtue of you being a part of it.

The Bad
Who will not enjoy Tres Lunas? People who think that a computer game should involve fighting or killing things won't. People who like fast-paced action and adrenaline rushes won't. People who don't enjoy instrumental or "New Age" music won't. Goal-oriented people who feel the need to "accomplish" something or work toward a goal won't.

For some, the unstructured design and open-endedness of Tres Lunas will ultimately be its Achilles Heel. Such people will constantly find themselves asking "What am I supposed to do next?" Such people may find the game to be "boring".

The Bottom Line
Perhaps the best way of describing "Tres Lunas" is to compare it with Disney's "Fantasia" films. What is "Fantasia" about? It's not about anything. There is no plot, no story. It's just an experience unto itself. An abstract world of music and imagery. "Tres Lunas" is much like that.

By Halmanator on February 25, 2003

Superbike World Championship (Windows)

A nice looking, fast-paced motorcycle racing game.

The Good
Let me begin by admitting that I am not a big fan of racing games in general, and I know next to nothing about motorcycles. The only reason I own a game like "Superbike World Championship" (SBK) is because it came bundled with some other games. Still, I take pride in keeping an open mind, so I spent an evening racing motorcycles on my computer.

These days, most computer games make their first impression with their graphics. They have to look good if they're going to capture our interest. In this department, SBK is not lacking. It looks great. Supporting screen resolutions of up to 800x600, the graphics are crisp and eye-catching. At close range, some of the textures do become a little fuzzy with pixilated edges, but this is not normally an issue when they're zipping by you at upwards of 200 km/hr. Animation is smooth. Bikes lean into the curves realistically. Wheels spin and even the transmission gears move. Riders sit up when approaching curves and hunch down on the straightaways, legs come out to steady themselves upon taking a curve just a little too sharply, they make angry gestures at other riders that bump them or cut them off and they go tumbling ass over tea kettle when wiping out. Dust trails stream out when tires touch sand and clouds of dust envelope bike and rider when that sand causes the rider to completely lose control. Water sprays out from behind tires on rainy days and mist reduces visibility. Trees and bikes cast realistic shadows. This game was released in 1999. I played it in 2003. Four years is a ripe old age for a computer game, yet it still looks great.

Electronic Arts shelled out for the licensing rights to all the bikes, riders and tracks involved in the Superbike World Championship (back in 1997, mind you) so fans of this sport get to see all their favorites. There are 12 riders, 5 bikes and 12 tracks featured.

I find that there are two types of racing game fans; the hardcore simulation enthusiast and the action-oriented player who prefers a faster, more intense but, perhaps, less realistic experience. SBK can satisfy either. In "simulation" mode, with the realism cranked up, these bikes are hard to control and the learning curve is steep! Over-accelerating can result in blown engines or wild wheelies that will throw the player from the bike. Wandering off the track onto grass or sand is a sure way for riders to find their wheels sliding out from underneath them. Bike setups can be tweaked including rake (fork angle), trail (fork length), transmission, suspension and tires.

If, on the other hand, you prefer a less complex racing experience, you can race in "action" mode, where bike control is simplified and bike setup is done for you. Even in the more realistic "simulation" mode, there are aids to assist you as you learn the nuances of racing, such as automatic transmission, accelerator, brake and speed control assists. The game can also automatically cause your rider to sit up when approaching curves in order to increase drag and reduce speed, or you can control this action yourself.

The actual racing experience is enjoyable, regardless of the mode and realism settings. The sensation of speed is well conveyed as textured asphalt, grass, signs and spectators go whizzing by in a blur. Bikes jockey for position and horrendous wipe-outs are enough to make the most stalwart player wince in empathy. Force feedback joysticks are supported. You can feel the "kick" as the rider shifts gears and the resistance while leaning into tight curves.

There's some interesting background info, both in the manual and within the game itself for the Superbike enthusiast including a brief history of the sport, rider and race stats from 1989 through 1997, technical specs for all of the bikes, brief bios on all and the riders and information about all of the tracks.

The Bad
Even in "simulation" mode, with all the realism cranked up, there is no apparent damage modelling. Both bike and rider will survive the most horrendous crashes unscathed. The only penalty is lost time while the rider retrieves and re-mounts his bike.

Although you can change the names of any of the Superbike riders to your own, you can't create a custom rider for yourself. I would have liked to set myself up as a rider, including my correct age, birthplace, etc. without having to change any of the existing riders.

The Bottom Line
"Superbike World Championship" is a nice looking, fast-paced, fun motorcycle racing game. Fans of motorcycles and/or racing games in general, and fans of the Superbike circuit in particular, should enjoy this one.

By Halmanator on February 16, 2003

The Demon's Forge (PC Booter)

It's not so bad if given a chance.

The Good
Perhaps I have a soft spot in my heart for this game because it's the first adventure game that I ever finished. It was also the first adventure game that I ever played that featured graphics. To be sure, the graphics were crude and blocky and, in hindsight, the mental pictures conjured up by the excellent textual prose in games such as "Zork" were far superior to the crude images with which "Demon's Forge" adorned my PC monitor but, still, graphics in an adventure game were a novelty at the time and the pictures kept me coming back. Besides, "Demon's Forge" was much less difficult than "Zork".

Most of the puzzles were also engaging. Their difficulty ranged from straightforward to challenging but their solutions were generally logical. There was even one puzzle which had a solution that I suspect the designers never intended (see "Tips and Tricks" for more info on this, as it contains a spoiler).

Humor is also used well. One of the game's rooms contains a shelf full of books. The player can read each and every book on the shelf by referring to its number ("Read Book 1", "Read Book 2", etc.) None of the books contain anything useful except for one, which turns out to be a story about a bitter old man who wasted away his life reading books.

Later on in the game, there is a long corridor. I mean a LONG corridor. It takes many "moves" to finally reach its end and the corridor is completely featureless and uninteresting throughout its entire length. Those stubborn players (like myself) who persevere rather than turning back in disgust, eventually find a decrepit old man awaiting them at the far end of the corridor. If the player talks to this old man, all he has to say is "Read any good books lately?"

The Bad
As I have already admitted, the graphics were unimpressive, although bearable given the available technology when the game was released in the early '80's. The parser was not as robust as "Zork's" nor was the prose as well-written.

The Bottom Line
While not a "classic", I found this adventure game to be engaging and enjoyable. Sure I've seen better, but I've also seen worse.

By Halmanator on February 9, 2003

The Simpsons: Virtual Springfield (Windows)

An enjoyable romp through Springfield for Simpsons fans

The Good
Here's your chance to wander through the Simpsons' home town of Springfield and visit all those famous, favorite locations. Buy a Squishee at the Kwik-E-Mart. Press some buttons on Homer's console at the nuclear power plant. Mix up a "Flaming Moe" at Moe's bar. It's all here. The game does a good job of preserving the humor and the flavor of the television show. All of the original voice actors supply the voices of the various characters; no cheap immitations here.

The Bad
This game is basically "Myst" with a Simpsons theme. The "goal", such as it is, serves as little more than an excuse to explore. There are Simpsons collector cards to find and collect and you need to find various objects in order to gain access to some areas in the game. That's about it.

Although you're supposedly free to wander around Springfield at will, clicking on the screen moves you from one location to the next, with no opportunity to wander from the beaten path or even just look around in between locations. The result is a somewhat restrictive feel.

The Bottom Line
If you're a Simpsons fan, you'll enjoy this game, at least for a while. If you're not, it will likely get dull and tedious very quickly.

By Halmanator on February 2, 2003