Expertise isn't always enough

Previous Next

I've come to realise that games seem to interest two types of people. The first, and more numerous, only want to play the game and enjoy it.

The second want to know how it works and, probably, how to copy it. (I hasten to add that they only want to make a back-up copy!)

I thought of this when I got Acornsoft's Starship Command to review. A friend of mine who is much more knowledgable in the ways of the BBC Micro than I had told me of this "fantastic" new game from Acorn.

So it was with feelings of pleasant anticipation that I loaded it into my micro. Sadly, I was disappointed.

Not that it's a bad game. On the contrary it's a very good version of an old favourite. You know the one — you're a starship captain cruising through deep space tangling with alien nasties.

Well-packaged, with excellent instructions - both on paper and in software - it's an example of what a game should be. But it's also a bit boring.

> I got on to my friend and told him what I thought. I said the scenario was good, but wasn't it just Meteors with enemy ships instead of interstellar rocks?

He was appalled and told me I'd missed the point. The game was brilliant.

Hadn't I noticed that my ship stayed still in the centre of the screen and when I turned it was the enemy ships that "moved" relative to me? How do Acorn do that? he asked.

> Well I don't know and to be quite frank I don't care because I belong to the first group of games enthusiasts.

I just want an interesting, exciting game to play. And I'm afraid that despite the obvious expertise that went into it. Starship Command just does not fit the bill.

A lot of effort seems to have gone into producing a very ordinary game. Disappointing.

Nigel Peters