Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Zap't'Balls

309 bytes added, 14:13, 24 September 2006
Added mention of Zap't'Balls in Simon Forrester's review of Super Cauldron
== ''Amstrad Action'' review controversy ==
[[Simon Forrester]] reviewed ''Zap't'Balls: The Advanced Edition'' in the February 1993 issue of ''Amstrad Action'' (issue 89) and gave the game an overall rating of 85%, with 90% for graphics and 80% for sound. Although he remarked that "it has amazing graphics and real gameplay," and "you'll be playing it 'til you drop," many CPC scene members , particularly in Germany, felt that it deserved a much higher rating. Several issues later, Simon wrote in his review of ''[[Super Cauldron]]'' (which was also programmed by Elmar Krieger) in the June 1993 issue of ''AA'' (issue 93) that "''Zap't'Balls'' was slightly cack. Though studded with a nice effect, they interfered, so the game was wrecked." [[Odiesoft]] wrote a letter, which appeared in the October 1993 issue of ''AA'' (issue 97), complaining that Simon's review was "totally amateurish" and that "this game is worth at least 95 per cent, not just 85 per cent." ''AA'''s editor at the time, Dave Golder, responded that "''Zap't'Balls''... looked like <nowiki>[a]</nowiki> poor rip-off of ''Pang''", and he thought that "Simon was a bit too generous giving ''Zap'' 85 per cent."
In his interview with ''AA'', Elmar Krieger said that "the review itself was simply a major disappointment, and it would seem that many people share that opinion," and "in many magazines, 85 per cent is a really good mark, but in ''AA'' so many games which, in my opinion, were dreadful, got over 85 per cent, that it seemed somehow ridiculous."
860
edits