Zaxxon (c) 1984 Synapse

Chuck:  Welcome to our Zaxxon review.  As is tradition with arcade ports, we will begin by analyzing the arcade version.  Zaxxon was released by Sega into arcades in 1982, the first game to have an isometric (axonometric projection) perspective along with the first to have a television commercial.  As we mentioned in our Congo Bongo review, Zaxxon may have been created by the same team of programmers responsible for Radar Scope / Donkey Kong, which is a strong lineage.  As Donkey Kong brought life and vibrancy to platformers, Zaxxon brought a new perspective and a serious jolt of technological wizardry to the space shooter genre.  No one had seen anything like this.

John:  Being arcade rats in 1982 this game was like a bucket of cold water being thrown on you.  It's very hard to get it across to the under 40 crowd what this was like.  You never knew what you were going to run into when you went to the arcade.  You'd walk in in 1982 and see Moon Patrol, Bump n Jump, Jungle Hunt.. then BAM, suddenly there's the most awesome graphics you've ever seen with a play style that you've never experienced before.  It felt like stepping into the future.  This would happen a lot at the arcade, there was always something more advanced to blow your mind, but it seems like Zaxxon is the first time I remember it happening.

Chuck:  For me that game was Donkey Kong, how appropriate that these games are related.  Obviously there is enormous programming talent involved in Kong and Zaxxon, I really wish we knew more about who made these games.

The arcade environment did wonders for video game development and evolution.  In 1982 there was already a crowded game market and the pressure to have something stand out was enormous.  Some were adding voice to spice things up, like in Sinistar, and some were using visuals to rock your world.  You're right, it always felt like you were on the crest of a wave, always at the bleeding edge of technology.  It's still like that in some ways but games that are tent-poles, as it were, are much more rare.  Zaxxon is one of them, a technological masterpiece.

John:  Buuuuuut...

Chuck:  Oh yeah there's a big but.  We cannot lie.  Zaxxon's unique perspective makes it very difficult to play and its' skill set that doesnt translate from or to other games of its' era.  This is one of those graphics vs gameplay situations.  Zaxxon still looks great today, but modern gamers may not want to stick with it long enough to get good at it.  It's definitely still a name that means something to gamers of a certain age but nostalgia glasses will only take you so far with this game.  You've been warned.

Zaxxon imagines you are flying through two fortresses floating on islands in space.  This could have very well been set on land or over a river (which Sega would later do in the spiritual sequel called Future Spy) and it would have made much more logical sense, but having it set in space really worked toward the hi tech / space crazed environment we were living in at the time.

John:  Well, "space games" were all the rage at the time and that's not the only reason.  I feel like a big part of this was that early games had little to no background graphics capability and using a background color other than black could make things hard to see so... most games were set in space by default really.

Chuck:  The fortresses appear to be made from concrete blocks and are replete with dangers such as surface to air missiles (very Scramble-esque), gun turrets which can only hit you when you're skimming the surface, fuel tanks you shoot a-la River Raid to get more fuel and the "boss" character Zaxxon, who is some sort of hovering robot that shoots missiles.   Zaxxon is the only "character" in the game.  There is no story or marketable cartoony hero, the pilot you play as is completely anonymous and frankly your space craft is entirely uninteresting.  The star of the game is the beauty of the setting.  It really is gorgeous and it still looks great today.  I love the high-tech look of the fortress, the walls the floors with their circuit-like designs.  The colorful gun turrets and fuel tanks.  The hexagon-patterned floor that Zaxxon floats over.  The perfect angle at which you view it all from.  Fantastic.  If it looks this good today can you imagine how it looked in 82?

For such an elaborate presentation the game is actually very simple.   Owing to this game's perspective you are granted an altimeter of sorts.  Although you cannot fly too low and crash into the ground, the altimeter gives you a visual reference of where you were when you flew through a gap in a wall or when you blew up an enemy allowing you to plan ahead in the future.  So the game is mainly trial and error, knowing which position to be in at the right time.  Because it's so visually elaborate the game is very short without much variation save for a middle section between the two fortresses that is a free-flying dogfight vs several other spacecraft which I venomously hate, hate, hate with all of my being.  Still, it adds very much needed variety to the proceedings.

John:  The sound design is very cool.  It seems like your ship has some sort of exhaust sound that is ever-present and sounds really good.

Chuck:  In Zaxxon's literature they call it the sound of "space wind".

John:  The zaps of your laser fire, the pulse of the force field gates, the launching of the surface-to-air missiles, the explosions all sound great.  And I agree that after you get over Zaxxon's presentation the game lacks meat.  Can you imagine if Scramble was as short as Zaxxon?  I also agree that the design of your spacecraft is pretty dull.  It's just a regular airplane or space shuttle, which doesnt match up with the shoot em up nature of the game.  However it does match up with the flight stick used to control the game in the arcade.  So does the "space wind", come to think of it.  They're really pushing the flight aspect of it.

Chuck:  In the literature they push the game as a flight simulation, basically.  It wouldnt surprise me at all to find out the game wasnt originally space-based.  It seems like the design of the ship is made to assist the player with the (at the time, brand-new) controls and also to make it a more simple shape for scaling purposes.

John:  Right, it does look good when it's pitching and yaw-ing.  So, what we have here is a graphical powerhouse that controls pretty effectively for what it is and is short on content and variety.  Par for the course for a game like this.

Chuck:  It depends on if you "get" this kind of game design.  Some folks will play this and pick up on the subtleties with the altitude quickly and have a blast playing it.  Some will be way too frustrated.  It's like a more-playable Congo Bongo.

John:  Well it was made to eat quarters.  It's amazing how many people bought this game for the Colecovision (which is a fine port) who couldnt play it at all.  How many parties did we go to as kids where people were sitting around a TV playing Zaxxon, dying over and over and over again?   Just seeing Zaxxon himself felt like such a huge accomplishment.  The game never felt too short because nobody could play it well enough.

Chuck:  Yes but it's no fun constantly dying either.  I'm content to be bad at Zaxxon because I can usually see what the game has to offer in about 10 minutes or so.  I marvel at the graphics and design and then set it aside, satisfied.  You're better at it than me, what do you think?

John:  Like you said, it's trial and error, figuring out what altitude to be at and when.  You really gotta love the game to get good at it, you have to play it a LOT.  Most wont put that effort into it, especially not in 2016.

Chuck:  I love the idea and the spirit of Zaxxon more than the game itself.  And that middle dogfighting section.  What they were thinking with that I have no idea.

John:  It's the real test of your Zaxxon depth perception, you have to innately know your position on the altimeter by the size of your aircraft and that of the enemy's.

Chuck:  It's unbelievably annoying.

John:  So how about that C64 version?

Chuck:  Oh yes!  Our reason for the season.  Welcome, welcome to the fold, Synapse.  I thought Fort Apocalypse would be our first Synapse game but here we are.

John:  Well Zaxxon ties into our Congo Bongo review very neatly.  It tying into Synapse is just icing on the cake.

Chuck:  Synapse software is a giant among early C64 publishers.  Active until 1984 they provided much-needed quality to the early C64 lineup.  They were mostly Atari ports and although that usually gets under my skin they're mostly good games so it doesnt matter.  I love how they advertise other Synapse games on Zaxxon's title screen: coming soon - pharoh's curse - drelbs - zeppelin - necromancer and many many more!  Yes, they mis-spelled pharoah.



John:  So how did Synapse get to make such a high-profile arcade port?

Chuck:  Dealings with a shady lawyer working for Sega at the time.  Seriously.

John:  Wow.  OK.

Chuck:  Zaxxon here was programmed by Peter Adams, who programmed the C64 port of Blue Max right before this.  He's also responsible for Panther which was released by Mastertronic in 1988 and is also an isometric shooter.  This genre is definitely his bag, baby.

John:  Clearly.

Chuck:  Zaxxon was released in 1984 near the end of what I consider to be the C64's early years.  It had already made a big splash at home with the Colecovision version, but the C64 version is certainly not unwelcome.  However, coming after Blue Max it seems like a bit of a step backwards.  Blue Max is arguably better, with more gameplay elements, etc.  But if you're looking for your isometric shooter to be set in space rather than WWI, Zaxxon is the better way to go.

John:  Zaxxon for the C64 is a very sturdy port.  Smooth scrolling.  Responsive controls.  The skills you build playing the arcade game apply well and the game scores the same as the arcade.  You'll notice that the scores on the C64 version match those of the arcade version if you play it the same way.  Pretty impressive.  It's a little easier because it's a little slower but I wont count that against it.

Chuck:  Yes, please dont because that's definitely a huge plus in my book.  I can enjoy playing it on the 64 even if it doesnt wow me with its' presentation like the arcade version does.

John:  They definitely paid attention to the arcade version when creating the port.  Notice how you can shoot the cannons on the ground by flying slightly higher so that you hit the red spot on top while at the same time avoiding their shots.  That's attention to detail you dont find in other versions.

There are two major differences between the 64 and arcade version:

1.  The controls.  The arcade versions controls are floaty.  The spacecraft has momentum and pushing the stick to the left and then stopping will cause the ship to tilt (bank) left then continue to travel in that direction briefly before straightening out after you've stopped moving the stick.  In the C64 version the craft does not bank left or right but rather strafes left and right and stops immediately when you stop moving the joystick.  It's not a problem, necessarily, but if you're used to the arcade version you will definitely notice the difference and have to adjust your play accordingly.  In the end I believe you'll find it's easier to control the 64 version.

2.  The perspective has changed.  In the arcade version of Zaxxon you can move left and right along the entire length of the fortress.  In the 64 version you seem to have a zoomed-in perspective of the left side of the fortress and you can only fly to the right to what feels like the middle of the screen.  It's strange but not a dealbreaker, the game feels very much like the arcade game anyway.  And it's not because of the aspect ratio difference between home TV vs the arcade, the C64 version is the only version like this that I could find.  All the other major versions have a "right side".

Chuck:  The graphics in the C64 version are just average.  I miss the arcade version's colors.  The blues of the surface and the white lines drawn overtop look so much more "futuristic" than the C64's.  The surface in the C64 version is actually made up of alternating lines, it's actually a pattern of grey and blue, and there's too much of this same gray color on everything.  It looks too dark and I'll dare say it - ugly.  There are bright spots though, the dreaded dogfight section has a cool space background with color shifting planets and galaxies.  It's good stuff.

John:  Compared to other versions the 64's looks very good.  The explosions are very well done.

Chuck:  They are but they also reveal "seams" in the background's character set graphics.

John:  Getting a little nit-picky there.

Chuck:  Wanna pick nits?  Go ahead and talk about the sound design.

John:  OK.  Well it kind of sucks.

Chuck:  I said pick!

John:  It's very early-period C64 sounding.  Lots of taps, ticks, wooshes, dirty cymbal hits.  There should be zaps when you fire your laser, dammit.  Not this tippy-tap-tap crap.  It's completely missing the background noise of the arcade game also, which makes the game feel very quiet, which is also a common feature of this era of 64 games.

Chuck:   As a side note there is also a different port than the Synapse version, from Datasoft(?).  The background graphics are definitely better but in videos the gameplay looks choppy (we have not played this version).  My conclusion is that Zaxxon is best played on an arcade cabinet.  The C64 version is very competent but doesnt have the wow factor.  I'd go with Blue Max instead.

John:  Well, sometimes you want to play Zaxxon, and this is one of the best, if not THE best ports of it.  I give it a thumbs up.  So Zaxxon gets a half-recommend.  I'd say that's about right.

Chuck:  But dont go yet dear readers because it's time for a ** BONUS REVIEW ** !!

John:  Oh, be still my beating heart.

Chuck:  Up next is SUPER Zaxxon.  Because we just cant get enough punishment.

John:  Punishment is correct.  The arcade version of Super Zaxxon came out very quickly.  It is NOT a sequel.  It's meant to be a cheap conversion kit for existing Zaxxon cabinets that provides an extra hit of adrenaline for Zaxxon junkies by making the screen scroll unbelievably fast.  It is a "hard mode" for players getting bored with the original Zaxxon.

Chuck:  It's ridiculous.  It's literally impossible to play.

John:  This was a good move on Sega's part.  Strike while the iron is hot, as they say.

Chuck:  I like the tunnels instead of the space dogfights even though they dont add much variety to the game.  I really like how the tunnels look, with the road and the TUNNEL IN!! flashing message.  It's got the same future-cool look as Zaxxon but everything is lime green instead of blue.

Super Zaxxon (arcade) mixes things up by making the playfield green instead of blue.

John:  The tunnels are there, I think, because the speed of the game wouldnt make any sense regarding the dogfights.  And instead of facing Zaxxon you face a mighty, fearsome space dragon!

Chuck:  LOL

John:  LOL

Chuck:  Yeah it's about as fearsome as Barney the dinosaur.  It looks like a parade float.  It looks NOTHING like the dragon in the game's literature.  It literally looks like a Muppet Babies version of the dragon on the cabinet.

Drogon, this aint.

John:  It looks like a Disney mascot costume you'd see walking around the Magic Kingdom.  I will admit when I played this game on the C64 many years ago I thought it was some kind of joke or hack or something.  Nope, it's real.

The C64's terrifying dragon.

Chuck:  So, Synapse had nothing to do with this C64 port.  It was programmed by Micheal Cranford and Lawrence Holland for Hesware (who published many of Jeff Minter's games).

There is also another version of Super Zaxxon which does maintain the green color of the arcade version and was published by US Gold.  It looks and sounds pretty awful according to this video right here.

John:  That is one of the most annoying games I have EVER heard.

Normally I'm not big on who programmed what and when.  That's more your department.  But I have to say I was surprised to find out that this was (at least partly) programmed by the guy responsible for The Bard's Tale.  What a big leap in genres.

Chuck:  That's Micheal Cranford.  He also designed Dark Seed, so yeah he did a lot of genre hopping.  I'm more surprised that Lawrence Holland also programmed Spike's Peak for the 2600.  Not sure why I'm surprised, it's just such an odd (and technically advanced) 2600 title, it's unexpected to see it mentioned anywhere for any reason.

John:  It's probably the C64 version of Spike's Peak, not the 2600 version.

Chuck:  There's a C64 version??

John:  Yes.

And I think you might be brushing right by his huge involvement in the Star Wars X-Wing and TIE Fighter series?  Some of the most renowned games of ALL TIME?

Chuck:  Damn, this stupid Super Zaxxon port has some serious genes.

John: Stupid, I can agree with.  It's as slow as the arcade version is fast.  The only reason Super Zaxxon exists is to be a lure for Zaxxon freaks who are too good at the game.  The 64 version removes that reason.  So now it has no reason to exist.

Chuck:  They completely ignored the arcade version's art style.  There's no green to be found.  It's all grey and blue like the first Zaxxon.

John:  At least it has decent sound effects.  An actual laser sound, a nice siren to warn of the Dragon approaching.  Oh and it has a nice little title tune that the aracde version lacks.  I actually think it would be interesting to have a real home port of Super Zaxxon but this isnt it.  Super Zaxxon is supposed to be very fast, period.

Chuck:  The most interesting thing about Super Zaxxon is its' heavy-hitting programming lineage.  Two mighty game franchise creators have such humble beginnings.  Who knew?

Chuck:  OK, so we both agree that one can pass on Super Zaxxon.  Overall, though, Zaxxon in any incarnation is one of the more playable of the "graphical flash vs. gameplay" designs, with a unique and beautiful backdrop.  I imagine it will be remembered for years to come.  By old people.  Like us.

John:  Synapse's 64 port is very playable but lackluster in the audiovisual department.  Super Zaxxon is a bit brighter but is too slow to be considered an actual port of the arcade game.  Stay away from the US Gold (or whomever) versions of the games we didnt cover here and Zaxx off everyone, good night!

Chuck:  Sigh.

Yes we're still alive

Howdy folks, this is blendo75 here with an update as to what's going on.

We've gotten a lot of nice correspondence from our readership that we surely do not deserve on account of our lack of updates and replies, but I do have time to address most of your questions right now.  Hopefully this covers a lot of ground.

Yes, we're all alive here.  Yes, it sucks that there were major life upheavals right as we were finding a groove.  Yes, we're going to get back to it ASAP.

We are a very close group.  We are related.  Chuck and John are brothers.  No we are not on Facebook under any names you see on this page.  We value our privacy so we arent going to say much more.  As for the picture of "us", is it really us.. there's hints to this whole thing all around you and more clues on our twitter (blendo75).

Our experience, both unique and combined, covers a broad spectrum of games both old and new, from systems previous to the C64 and post.. The focus here is Commodore 64 games but they are approached from the perspective of 40 years of gaming, beginning with the Odyssey 2 (with a brief experience with the Odyssey 1 beforehand).  The Commodore 64 is definitely our favorite system and the one with the most impact on us, and certainly not just because of games but for the world that it opened for us with regards to all aspects of computing - BBSs, hacking/phreaking/cracking, etc.

We're all familiar with the 64's capabilities and have played more games for this system than any other platform and that will probably stand until the day we all die.  We absolutely love all of them, even the very rotten ones, as they all have something to teach you about the system and about how C64 games and games in general should be designed.  But more importantly, they all have a bit of magic and mystery to them that is granted to them by the unique hardware capabilities of a system created in 1982 and by the fact that they are usually the vision of one individual or a small team.  The C64 is a system with uniquely crafted hardware that does so much with so little that it very nearly IS magic.  Only the Atari 2600 and Amiga 500 can compare, in our estimation.

Yes we do want to review games for other systems, the aforementioned 2600 and Amiga.  Maybe a modern one once in a while.  But we want the content of the blog to be mostly C64 and we dont have a lot of C64 content at all, yet.
               
No we do not enjoy hating on games.  Reviewing these C64 games is about more for us than just giving thumbs up or down.  It's about cataloging our experiences with them.  It's about conveying to others, to strangers from all over the world, those experiences.  We'd like to think that our perspective is uniquely our own and is, hopefully, valuable to the Commodore community and to those who also love and want to further understand what makes games fun or not fun, what makes them important or throwaways  What makes them an art form.  Sometimes we do take bad games personally.  Our time is limited and precious, and games that are mediocre and/or that were made to trick you into buying them are stealing that time.

We realize that most of our readers are either exclusively C64 gamers or exclusively 8-bit.  But if you're insterested in modern games, yes, we do play them.  Not as many as we'd like to.  Some recent ones we hold in high esteem are Civ 5, Skyrim, Minecraft, Resident Evil 4, Guitar Hero, Boom Blox, Final Fantasy X / XII / XIII, Luigi's Mansion and Katamari Damacy.

Omega Race (c) 1982 Commodore / Midway

(thanks gamesdb)

Chuck:  Thanks for waiting!  After a long but necessary hiatus we're back with Omega Race, an in-house effort from Commodore themselves.  It's another good arcade port from the company you'd least expect.  Back in 1982, though, there werent many other publishers pumping out C64 software, and Commodore wanted to emphasize the entertainment aspects of the machine.

John:  Perhaps to lure in VIC-20 owners who mostly used their computers as fancy consoles?  VIC-20 users seem to go bonkers for Omega Race in particular.

Chuck:  Perhaps.  Omega Race began life in the arcades of 1981 as Midway's answer to Asteroids.  It was the first and last vector graphics game Midway would ever make.

John:  Faaaascinating...

Chuck:  Indeed.  It was programmed by Ron Haliburton who is an old, old, ooooold school game designer that began his career in the electromechanical era and went on to create Pong and Tank knockoffs, and some very early racers. He claims to have created the first skiing game.

His real claim to fame, though, is Omega Race.  Remembered by lots.  Fondly remembered by most. And almost completely removed from the modern (retro) gaming scene.

John:  I dont remember ever seeing it in a Midway collection, or in any sort of re-release.

Chuck:  That's because there are none and never were any.  Released for most PCs and consoles pre-console crash, it fell completely off the map afterward.  I have a feeling Ron or another company he worked for kept the rights to it.  Either that or the game just doesnt make sense in any other context beyond its' early 80s heyday.

John:  That's what I'm thinking.  The game is very strange.  I dont know if the general gaming population has an impression of Omega Race other than that it's an Asteroids knock off.  Or rip off.  Or "Midways' answer to Asteroids" if we're being diplomatic.  It lacks a cohesive theme.

For example:

ASTEROIDS -  You're stuck in an asteroid belt!  Shoot asteroids to survive!

OMEGA RACE - In a distant galaxy, a race of fierce warriors known as the Omegans have preserved their independence and won the respect of their enemies by developing their fighting skills to a deadly precision.  To train their warriors, the Omegans stage a challenge known as the "Omega Race".  Over the Omegan city of Komar, android-piloted fighters relentlessly pursue the best of the Omegan warriors and yadda yadda yadda, holy crap.  It goes on and on.

And it has a very odd gameplay hook.  It's all the fun of Asteroids with a big box in the middle of the screen.  Do you "race" around the box?  No, it's just a big obstacle.   I'm not sure how they came up with this.  It probably was supposed to be some sort of vector racing game, where you raced around the screen Rally-style, until they decided it would make more money as a shoot em up.  "Race" is right there in the title, there may even have been some drastic last-minute changes made.

Chuck:  Mmmm,.. perhaps Race is just referring to the fact that you're engaging in some sort of contest rather than an actual battle...?  Or it's referring to the race of the Omegan peoples, as in the definition of race as a social concept?  It's there in the documentation, "a race of fierce warriors".

John:  Oh that's deep. If it wasnt supposed to be an actual racing game then why is there one large obstacle that's so obviously the infield of a racing track?  Why not multiple, smaller boxes?  Why not long rectangles making corridors?  Why not change the layout on subsequent levels?  It is a fun game, for sure, but it feels like two different concepts being pulled in different directions.

What really annoys me though, and this goes for lots of games out there, not just this one, is that in the context or story of the game this is supposed to be a training mission, or some sort of simulation of combat.  Why do video games ever, ever do this?  You're already interacting with a metaphorical representation of reality, why cant you be fighting real enemies per the story?  Why's it gotta be a simulation of a simulation?

Chuck:  Just so we're all on the same page here, Omega Race, like Asteroids, has you piloting some sort of space ship, spinning it left and right and using a button to thrust and another to fire.  The enemies are numerous circular objects (Droids) that mostly move together either clockwise or counter around the big box in the middle of the screen.  One of the enemies (Commandos) will be faster, and smarter, and attempt to seek out and destroy you with lasers while at the same time dropping mines which you must avoid.

Your job is to clear out all enemies.  When you do this you will notice that enemies you do not shoot will take over for the "leader" when it is destroyed.  If you do not shoot the leader(s) or clear the level fast enough it will turn into a fast moving death machine (literally called the Death Ship) that will kill you quickly.  As the difficulty increases you will have to deal with multiple leaders at once, that move faster, drop more mines, etc.

So, basically you want to kill the slow guys first so they dont graduate to more dangerous forms.

Other gameplay elements include invisible walls on all sides of the screen which light up when shot or touched by your ship.  You will bounce off these walls and the square in the middle.  You only crash if you touch an enemy.  You and the enemies have the ability to fire rapidly in a very satisfying pew-pew video-gamey kind of way.

John:  That's what I enjoy about it.  It has these arcadey elements down to a science.  Great "music" (a few repeating notes) that get faster to ramp up tension.  Great arcadey sound effects.  It's a very well-done vector shooter.  This isnt a review of the arcade version, though!

Chuck:  Right.  The C64 version was programmed by Andy Finkel and Eric Cotton, who created the celebrated VIC-20 version, which is actually a bit better than this one.  They're responsible for the rest of these Commodore-branded Midway ports of this time period such as Gorf, Wizard of Wor and Lazarian.

The C64 version retains some of the great things about the arcade version while being easier, overall.  That's typical for a home translation and not necessarily a strike against it.  However, the reason it is easier is because there are changes to the way the enemies behave, and it's a bit of an issue.

Playing the C64 version feels very similar to the arcade, particularly the way you and the enemies fire at each other.  The difference comes in the way the enemies move toward you.  In the C64 version they tend to bounce their way toward you; off of the walls and the center box.  All of the enemies do this, but it's most noticeable in the Death Ship.  It falls a little flat when it languidly bounces its' way toward you, as opposed to the frightening way it quickly homes in on your in the arcade version.  In fact the entire experience is slowed down, perhaps to make it easier?

John:  What?

Chuck:  The game does gradually get more difficult but still feels slow.  I dont know though, if you arent overly familiar with the arcade version you may not even notice the difference.  If you're a big fan of the arcade version, or even the VIC version, you'll find the C64 version lacking in oomph.

John:  The Death Ship doesnt move like that at all.  Well, it does bounce around more but it's very fast and there's a blaring siren sound and... ?   What's going on here?

Marco:  **** Later that day ****

Chuck:  OK.  Permit me to blow you minds, readers:  There are two distinct versions of Omega Race for the C64.  We each played a different version without realizing it.  Not only that, but there is a third version!  It's the version for the Ultimax though, so that doesnt count as far as I'm concerned.

John:  Let's call them the Fast and Slow versions, since that's the most distinct feature that's different. The fast version's enemies move quicker, more fluidly and take a more direct path to reach you rather than haphazardly bouncing around.  But the easiest way to tell them apart?  Like this:

The Fast version has a very Omega-Race-looking font on the title screen and in the box during the game.

The Slow version has a bitmapped title and uses the default C64 font.

You can check out the differences here, on this wonderful website: http://c64preservation.com/ultimax

And here's a lot of gameplay footage of the slow version:  https://youtu.be/40LANg3m2pE  (note: you get a good glimpse at the Commodore paddle controller at the very beginning)

I still dont understand how these two versions came to be, but I am certain that the "slow" version with the default 64 font is worse.

Chuck:  I agree.  Although the slow version is good if you want a lesser challenge.  I'm having a hard time with the fast version.

John:  I'm not seeing any reason to play the slow version.  It's a shame that it's out there mixed into everyone's collections and libraries.  It really shouldnt exist.  And yet it's so ubiquitous it even made it into the C64 Wiki, which doesnt even mention that another version exists.  Even the CSDB has the slow version as the only version.

Chuck:  Well, we were unaware of it and we've played every game under the sun.  I'm sure we've played both versions in the past without even realizing it.  It took us both playing different versions, unaware, separately, for the different versions to be exposed.

John:  After that truth bomb I'm not even sure where we're at in the review.

Chuck:  Let's just say that the fast version is a very respectable arcade port.  Great gameplay and sound effects.  The controls work great.  Push up to thrust, left and right to spin.  Makes sense.  And it makes me wonder of the necessity of the accessory that comes with the Atari 2600 version of the game that gives you a second button to thrust with.

John:  The behavior of the Death Ship in the fast version really matters and is what truly sets it apart from the slow version.  In the slow version it's a joke.  In the fast version it's a real threat and the blaring alarm siren that accompanies it really gets you on your toes.  It's almost as if the slow version wasnt finished.

The graphics in the two versions are very similar.  I dont like that the shape of the player's ship is simplified to a triangle.  I always liked the original ship design.  Hell, it's even on the 64's box cover.

As I mentioned earlier, the VIC-20 version is venerated by VIC users.  I see praise for it almost everywhere VIC games are discussed.  You dont hear as much about the C64 version.  I suppose that could be the result of higher expectations.

Chuck:  It's certainly above average.  It's one of the first C64 games ever in addition to being a port of a game from 1980.  I have no problem giving it my recommendation.  So, Johnny, does Omega Race cross the finish line?

John:  Sure.

Chuck:  Well, with that hearty recommendation I pronounce Omega Race to be Good... Enough!

Big Bam Boom!

C64 Review - Congo Bongo (C) 1983 Sega

{thanks Moby Games}

Chuck:  Today we have Sega's not-so-classic, not-such-a-big-arcade-hit Congo Bongo.  Long considered Sega's answer to Donkey Kong (and probably programmed by some of the same people), Congo Bongo is a graphically intense isometric platformer made to stand out in a crowded 1983 arcade market.  

The C-64 port was programmed by Beck Tech, another Berkely/Silicon Valley-type tech startup that sprang up like weeds in the late 70's and early 80's.  Beck Tech has a good track record with me.  Their version of Tapper for the Atari 2600 is an amazing technical achievement and one of the best port jobs in the 2600's library.  Hell, their 2600 version of Congo Bongo's pretty impressive too.  They ported Tapper to the C-64 as well and did a pretty good job of that; it could be because Sega at least let them put that on a disk.  Congo Bongo got squeezed onto a cart and according to one article I read it's cut down to 24k.  It's understandable.  The high cost of memory at the time, manufacturing costs, low C-64 user base... why take a chance?  Why invest time and resources into something that might not sell?

John:  I'll tell you why, because you're charging the same amount of money as you are for every other version of the game.   Let's put it plainly: the C64 got the shit end of the stick.  Regardless of the circumstances, Beck and Sega though this was good enough to release.  It's barely better than the 2600 version, which at least has the benefit of looking great considering the system's limitations.  The Apple II version is better, like a completely different game from this one.  Even the Colecovision port is better.  We got the same version the Atari 5200 did.  It's bad.  It's bad like cancer.

Chuck:  Yeah but I cant get too offended by it.  I think a big part of the problem is the game it's based on, not the technical shortcomings of the port.

John:  I admit I have a soft spot for this game.  I mean the real game, the arcade game.  The whole point of the game is to be a technical wonder.  A 1983 technical wonder, yes, but if you lived the arcade life like we did, when we did, you remember what it was like seeing this game for the first time.  It made a lot of other games look absolutely ancient.  A lot of the game's literature and ads describe it as "3-D" and it really did look that way at the time.  The way the player and enemies interact with the environment, the way the coconuts tumble down the hill on the first level, the way the water appears to flow.. it all adds up to a very cartoon-like, living environment with depth.  It still looks good today, particularly when it's in motion.  And not only was it a more evolved platformer, one of the levels was entirely based on Frogger as well.

Chuck: It's programmed by the same folks that did Zaxxon and uses the same "engine".  The isometric view did look pretty sharp at the time.  This was the era of Dragon's Lair and the Star Wars X-Wing cockpit game, so it was getting harder for traditional raster games to surprise you with graphical fidelity.  The gap between the arcade experience and the home experience was getting wider, also.  

You're right, no other game looked like this.  It was seemingly the next step in platform gaming.  It really looked the part and it was almost irresistably attractive.  That was the whole point.  Like Dragon's Lair it was meant to dazzle you into playing it.  Also like Dragon's Lair you quickly realized it wasnt as playable as you were accustomed to.

There's a trade-off to this perspective.  It's hard to judge where you're jumping to and how far.  So, of course, they make the game entirely about jumping and judging where you're going to land to the point where, as you pointed out, one of the levels is a Frogger-esque jump fest.  It's maddening.  It feels like the game isnt working properly.

Another thing that bothers me, and I feel is an example of another trade-off, is that the game is very short.  The elaborate graphics and environment leave you with little to actually do.  All the levels are very brief point-A to point-B affairs.  To the developer's credit there is variety between the levels but they dont leave much of an impression on their own.  I watched John play the arcade version and he must have rolled through all of the levels at least 5 times.  After the game was over I could have sworn there were only three levels in the game, not four.  The second level is so inconsequential that I didnt even remember it after seeing it multiple times!   The first level, the one that everyone remembers, only has two real jumps.  The level with stampeding wildebeasts and you ducking into holes is pretty well thought out, but lasts less than a minute.  The final Frogger stage is OK, but suffers thanks to the difficult controls.

It's obvious that they had a very cool-looking concept (freeze Zaxxon in place) and they grafted a game onto it the best they could.  It's not horrible or anything but it's more fun to watch than it is to play.

John:  I agree that it's not for everyone and it can definitely be unfair.  It certainly takes a lot of practice.  It's not as immediately accessible as Popeye or Mario Bros, and history shows that this concept was pretty much a dead end.  Mario Bros begat Super Mario Bros and platformers truly hit the next level.  The first 2.5D, axonometric platformer was also pretty much the last, in the arcade anyway.

Enough about the arcade version, let's discuss what we're all here for.  The pile of puke that is the C64 port.

Chuck:  Well, we're both making a point about how we approached the C-64 version.  I wasnt sold on Congo Bongo in the first place, so I wasnt surprised to find that the C-64 port was awful.  I know we played this a lot when we were kids and I honestly dont remember it being this bad.  If you arent at least a fan of Congo Bongo, there is nothing for you here.

John:  And my point is that this game was meant to be a state-of-the-art eye-popper and if you take that away, you arent left with much.  But the C64 version does much worse than simply have poor graphics.  The first thing you'll notice is that the perspective is wrong.  They've "turned" it further.  Merely cosmetic?  Nope, it negatively impacts gameplay.

They've completely botched the game's isometric perpective.  Instead of the nice axonometric Zaxxon view it just looks like a 2D platformer with an extremely poor attempt at field depth.  The perspective the arcade original uses allows you to understand where the coconuts are and where they are going.  The initial coconut volley is supposed to roll down the hill toward your entrypoint (bottom left) and you move left or right as you climb to avoid them.  This version is so screwy that you actually have to move up and down to avoid them.  Because the perspective is off the coconuts move right to left instead of down.   You have to judge if they are in front of you (toward the screen) or behind you (away from the screen).  It's awkward and unnatural.

 When you get to the top you cant really dodge them anymore because you have nowhere to move - they'll either hit your head or your feet.  So you just wait until Bongo's not throwing coconuts to rush up the final steps.  Congo Bongo doesnt make any sense with this perspective.  This isnt what the game is supposed to play like at all.

Imagine if they took Zaxxon and made it a 2D side-scroller but still pretended to be 3-D by trying to fool you into thinking you're moving into and out of the playfield by simply moving up and down.  That's the best way I can describe this mess.  Without sprite scaling there's no way you can have the illusion of going deeper into the screen.  Wouldnt it have been easier to just keep the game's original perspective?  I'm guessing that it wasnt.  I'm guessing that drawing the playfield with right angles was the easiest way to do it on the Atari 5200, and since this is a lazy port we got the same thing.

The coconuts move so slow and choppy it almost doesnt matter anyway, you could be half-way through the stage before the first one drops.  And do they have to be purple??  

Next up is the Hunter.  The player sprite looks awful and if you look closely you can see that he has no eyes, just empty spaces through which you can see the play field.  He's got the red nose but he's too tall and skinny.

The Hunter barely seems to be a part of, or interacting with, the environment and instead appears to awkwardly float over top.  The monkees and the coconuts fare a little better but the way they move reminds me of a Tiger LCD game.  Bongo looks absolutely nothing like he should.  What the heck, Beck-Tech?  I could swear the programmers read a description of the game and worked from that, having never played the arcade game before.  Even the Bongo in the 2600 version looks more like it should!

One moment that sums up the entire game for me can be seen if you move too far to the left while walking on the bridge.  Instead of falling you immediately make a "splat" pose and die right at the edge of the bridge.  That's just pure hackery.

Once you make it through the first level you skip right to the last level which is the arcade's final Frogger stage.  Not much to say about this one except that the horrible jump mechanic really rears it's ugly head here.  Once again the perspective is off but at least it's consistent with the first stage.  Jumping on the first lilly pad is hard to miss.  It doesnt seem to matter whether the lilly pad is large or shrunken.  You might make your second jump, it's pure luck.  Your player sprite is so clunky and blocky you cant tell where you're standing.  When you jump to the next little island it always LOOKS like you made it, but it's 50/50 whether the game give it to you or not.  If you do make that second jump it's very easy to make it to the end.  I dont know why you would try to take an alternate path through the level.

After this you go back to level one with more aggressive monkeys.  That's it.  That's the whole game.  It's a platform game with maybe six mandatory jumps.  

Chuck:  It's not really missing anything by not including the second level with the snakes since that one's a throwaway, but it really could have used the wildebeast stage.  There's no meat to this game.  Again, some of this is because of the original game, but this takes what little was there and cuts most of it out.

John:  And it doesnt even have pretty graphics to fall back on.  This really is a disaster.  Something to note is that a couple years later someone whipped up a new version of Congo Bongo that looks a million times better.  We cant comment on how it plays since we never played it but check this out:  http://youtu.be/A8O_uUwMZ5U

That looks a lot like the Apple II version which is what the C64 version should have been in the first place.

I'll say it again, we got the Atari 5200 version on the C64.  What a shame.  At least it doesnt crash or do anything out of the ordinary.  So at least it's a semi-competent, un-fun piece of crap.

Chuck:  Eh.  Early eighties isometric platforming isnt all it's cracked up to be on any system, but I can still appreciate what a kick in the crotch this game would be to a fan.  Isnt there anything good about Congo Bongo?  The color palette isnt too bad.

John:  The sounds are decent.  Um... the music isnt completely horrible.  Ugh.  Enough of this.  I'm going to fire up MAME and play the real Congo Bongo while listening to the real Oingo Boingo.

Chuck:  Sounds like a party.  A dead man's party, as it were.  Ugh.  Sorry folks.  For everything.

C64 Review - Choplifter! (C) 1982 Br0derbund

(thanks Mayhem64)


Chuck: After a bit of a looong delay we're back with Choplifter!  Programmed in 1982 by Dan Gorlin (Apple) and Dane Bigham (C64).

John: Are we going to offer any explanation as to why we stepped back a year to 1982?

Chuck: Nope.  Honestly, though, I'm not 100% convinced that it didnt hit the C64 until 1983.

This is by far the most popular game we've reviewed yet, with sequels hitting consoles, remakes hitting arcades and popularity that continues nearly to this day.  Dan Gorlin struck gold with this idea.  Initially intended as a realistic simulation of helicopter controls, it was carved into a super-tight action game that PC players were decidedly unused to experiencing on their home computers.  This is straight out of the arcade.

John:  Aside from how it scores you, that is.

Chuck:  We'll get to that.  Dan Gorlin was obviously an ace programmer and animator.  My favorite game of his is the very unfortunately overlooked Typhoon Thompson for the Amiga.  Do yourself a favor and check that one out.

John:  Been there and done that.  It's a little too aggravating for me personally, but the graphics and animation are incredible.

Chuck:  I was talking to the readers, dummy.  One of these days we'll have to hash that out between us though.  Dane Bigham is probably best known as the programmer of Carmen Sandiego.  Br0derbund needs no introduction, surely!  This game may be the one that introduced us to Br0derbund's go-to bad guys, the Bungeling Empire of Raid on Bungeling Bay and Lode Runner lore.

It's hard to beat what these folks accomplished in 1982, especially on the C64.  Fort Apocalypse may have made it out in 1982 as well, though, so I'm not completely prepared to say this is the very best C64 game of 1982, but it's way up there.

John: Definitely top 3.  1982 is a bit of a...

Chuck:  Crap-fest?

John:  It definitely has some commercial releases that will make you question the sanity of all involved, including yourself.  But there's Axis Assassin, Zork... I think Omega Race turned out pretty good.

Chuck:  You're being extremely kind.  1982 is hell on the C64.  Choplifter was one of the few exceptions.  It's a AAA game among 100 other things that shouldnt have been saved to disk after they were programmed.

John:  And yet, it isnt perfect.  It's got a bit of that Apple-itis.  Maybe more than a bit.

Chuck:  I agree.  It's hard to get critical about it since this is 1982 and the power of the C64 is nearly entirely untapped.  Still, the color scheme definitely leaves something to be desired.  Red, white, blue and grey.  OK, it's almost ugly looking.

John:  I honestly think the palette is deliberately chosen to make the tiny little people animate better.  If you look closely at them they should be blobs of clashing colors, but they look perfect when they're waving, running, etc.  Their level of detail is fantastic when you consider how small they really are.  A nice big tube TV or a small CRT blends everything very well.

Chuck:  It is all about the animation.  This game looks and feels incredibly alive.  It's fun to just watch the helicopter fly around and turn in different directions.  The blue Jets look fantastic.  The little tank treads are animated.  The explosions have several frames.  The stars in the sky are always twinkling.  It's like watching a little living universe.

John:  Ha, I dont know if I would go that far but yes, the animation is top notch, the scrolling is very smooth, the rate of fire is excellent.  Things hardly ever slow down and when they do it's not bothersome.  The controls are extremely tight and finely-tuned.

Chuck:  The gameplay is nearly perfect.  I mean, this is what people really love about the game.  It's very basic in a way.  There could have been more going on in the game, a la Defender, but instead it is stripped back to a single objective: dont let your little dudes die.

John:  Right.  Take off, fly to the left, dont let the blue Jet kill you, bomb tanks that are too close to the hostages, pick them up and fly them back.

Chuck:  The Jets are a little annoying.  They fly extremely fast (duh) and sometimes shoot you down before you even know they're coming.  The tanks pose little threat to you unless you're loading hostages.  It's not worth it to shoot everything because there's no score.  You dont even really feel like you've accomplished much unless you rescue all 64 hostages, and they are pretty easy to lose.  The tanks pose the biggest threat to the hostages but you'll certainly kill a few of them yourself by landing too hard on them.

John:  The Jets are never worth shooting down.  Another one is always nearby.  They dont pose that much of a threat as long as you know where to land. The hostages, though, might be in danger from the Jet's missiles if the hostages are spread across the screen.   Basically you should stay low to avoid the jets and bomb the tanks closest to the hostages.  Learn how to land softly so you dont kill yourself or the hostages and get used to lifting off and landing rapidly, as if you are jumping up and down - dont wait for the hostages to come to you!  Leap over to where they are and pick them up fast, there's always another tank on the way.

As for the scoring, as you mentioned there are no points for shooting anything.  You get one point per hostage delivered to the base which adds to the number next to the heart at the top-right.  The number on the top-left counts dead hostages.  The middle number is the number of hostages on-board.  I think scoring the game this way was the right decision.  It makes every hostage's life count.  Getting points for shooting the Jets and Tanks would have created a distraction.

The helicopter controls are outstanding.  Very intuitive and fun.  You can fly forward and backward without turning the helicopter and there is a near-perfect weight to the vehicle.  When you stop pushing the stick the helicopter will keep moving in that direction in perfect proportion to how fast you were moving.  It's very easy to see how this started out as a simulator.

Chuck:   It's easy to under-state what a revelation this game was at the time.  Animation: A++.  Controls: A++.  Gameplay: A++.  All is not rosy in Choplifter-land though.  John, tell them about the sound.

John:  Ha, what sound?  Seriously, though, the sound was not improved from the Apple II version at all.  The whir of your blade in decent enough, and I like that it slows down when you're on the ground and speeds up when you're in the air.  Your gunfire makes a you-have-to-be-kidding me plinky-plink sound that sounds like every Apple II sound effect you've ever heard.  Everything else is almost as awful.

There are two, maybe three different chirps that indicate a hostage has made it into the copter or that a hostage has died.  They're distinguishable, but just barely.  If you are new to the game you'll be killing hostages left and right and not even know it, such as when you land in a big crowd of them.  There's no death animation for these guys (surprisingly), so the only indication that YOU killed one, as opposed to an explosion from a Tank shot which is more noticeable, is this slightly angrier-sounding chirp which sounds nearly identical to the hooray-you-rescued-me chirp.  So did you rescue them or kill them?  Better check the numbers at the top.

The enemies make no sounds at all.  The explosions make no sound.  There's no sound when you die.  I guess it goes without saying that there's no music.

You can certainly chalk all this up to the era and you can definitely blame it on the Apple II, but really they knew they had an awesome game here.. would it have killed them to have some real sound effects?

Chuck:  Another nit-pick would be your own death sequence.  Your helicopter gets stuck half-way in the ground?  It's almost like an afterthought.

Sorry to end on a sour note folks but that's how our autopsies go.  No stone un-turned and all that.  So does it get our seal of approval?  Does Choplifter soar as in Airwolf or crash and burn as in Twilight Zone: The Movie?

John:  Oh man did you have to go there?  Yes, of course Choplifter gets it.  This is a phenom that goes beyond the era that birthed it and beyond the C64 itself.  As classic as they get.

C64 Review - Rescue Squad (C) 1983 Muse Software

Chuck:  Today we have Rescue Squad from the fabled software house of Muse.  Actually I should say it's "from" John Kutcher and published by Muse.  John was a junior in high school when he programmed this and found Muse in a phonebook by happenstance when looking for a publisher.  John had never even heard of Muse.  Muse was knee-deep in the Apple II at the time and turned out to be looking for a C64 programmer.  If John's name rings a bell that's because he's much more well known as the esteemed programmer of Space Taxi, one of the all-time C64 classics.

John:  One of the all-time C64 classics is not how Rescue Squad is remembered.

Chuck:  If it's remembered at all.  It's a bit of a footnote in the Muse and C64 history books.

John:  It has a few fans.  This is 1983 so the bar was lower when it came to gameplay, especially at home.  That's why I remember having a good time with this one when we were kids.  The concept, the graphics and the great music would mask its' faults to a gamer in 1983.  Upon re-evaluation in 2014, though...

Chuck:  Still, for a Junior in high school at what is practically the birth of the C64 and home computing in general, it's a good effort.  There are three screens which are practically three different games.

There is fantastic music by Silas Warner.  Now there's a name that should ring a few bells!  If it doesnt then, dear reader, you have some research to do.  He's a pioneer in computer audio and quite a character.  Oh and he's unfortunately deceased.  We'll definitely be talking about him more when we get to Castle Wolfenstein.

Let's start with the game's first screen in which you control an ambulance racing toward a burning building. It's a top-down perspective that reminds me a little of the grid in Crossfire, but it reminds me even more of the city in David Crane's Ghostbusters.

So, you have to navigate this grid from the bottom left to the top right, avoiding psychotic motorists that come at you from every direction.  Seriously, why the hell wont anyone yield to the ambulance?

John:  Why the hell arent you driving a fire truck to a fire?

Chuck:  Some cars are faster than you, some are slower but they all have no sense of self-preservation.  They crash into each other as much as they crash into you.  It's an absolutely brutal obstacle course.  And, I'm sorry to say, it's completely unfair.  As in, the game itself does not play fair with you.

John:  I agree with you on this one.  When you drive at the bottom, top or sides you will get hit by an off-screen car without knowing it's coming or having any chance to avoid it.  You cant avoid the outer sides completely because you start and end there.  So, especially on later levels, this first screen is complete luck, no skill.  You might as well have the computer run a RNG to decide if you're going to make it through.  It is only an illusion of a video game, it is not the real thing.

Chuck:  Even in the middle of the grid you'll get slammed into by random lightning-fast cars that are practically unavoidable.  They drive right in the center of the road and you cannot shift from lane to lane.  You can only make 90' turns.  It's a very awkard control scheme, or at least it is with regard to what the game wants from you.

John:  Let me give an example.  You can make a split-second decision, a correct play decision, to round a corner into a clear lane to avoid an oncoming car, only to get hit in the rear by an unavoidably fast car that wasnt there when you made that decision just a second ago.  That is getting beaten by luck, not lack of skill.

It's do able, over all.  I mean, you'll get through it, it's not insurmountably hard or anything like that.  It's just rediculously unfair and you actually lose a life when you crash.  It wouldnt be so bad if this was a bonus round like the second screen, where you dont lose a life and are just going for points.  The fire you are attempting to reach has a 1000 point value that decreases with time.  So why not have a crash slow you down instead of kill you and have the points be the incentive to get through the level?

Chuck:  In the second level you are faced with a burning building.  Survivors are leaping to their doom, unless you can catch them first.  Before they jump, though, they make sure to accidentally (?) drop a potted plant on your head.  Every window has a plant and when a jumper appears the plant falls down, fast.  When the jumper goes, the plant is replaced.  So, you have to avoid the plants but catch the jumpers which potentially are right behind the plants.

John:  If the jumper appears at the bottom window of the row you happen to be standing in, you're guaranteed to be hit.

Chuck:  Right.  This is a bonus round, though, you can take three hits without dying.  On the third hit a fire truck comes along and extends a ladder which you proceed to climb up and into the building.

John:  This is the easiest stage and the one where you'll rack up the most points.  You cant catch people from the side, you have to be standing under them when they get to the right spot.  It works the same with the pots, and since you arent punished for missing jumpers, staying in motion works well here.

Chuck:  The third level has you navigating a top-down maze, picking up survivors and delivering them back to the window you came in from.  Two or more fireballs, depending on the difficulty, randomly roam around. Touch the fire and lose a life.  If you manage to get all the people back to the window you are treated to some very royal-sounding fanfare and cycling colors,  then it's back to the ambulance driving stage for another go with increased difficulty.  Again you're doing the job of a firefighter, and now you even look like a firefighter, but apparently you're still the ambulance driver, I think?

That's the "firefighter" at the bottom, by the blue window.

John:  This screen's a little tedious.  There are a lot of people to rescue and you can only rescue one at a time.  The fireballs provide an interesting challenge.  They dont seem random to me, just a little lackadaisical on the easier levels.  This part should be the game's coup de grace but it falls a little flat.  Compared to the near-manic action of the previous levels this one's nearly inert.  The scoring on this level feels off as well.  You get few points for picking up a survivor and even less for dropping them off.  It takes a lot of effort to play this level, even on the easier difficulties the fireballs can be difficult to avoid because it's such a long path to get to the last few survivors and back,  and this effort is not reflected in the points you earn.

There are asbestos coats laying around that give you protection from the flames but they last a very short time and never seem to have an effective use.

Chuck:  A better idea would have been to pick up fire extinguishers and fight the fires, temporarily putting them out and then new ones would take their place.

John:  Let's talk about the graphics and sound, shall we?

Chuck:  The graphics are pretty good.  On the first level I like the look of the Ghostbusters-style city grid.  It's simple but at least it's colorful.  I like the variation in the vehicle types.  The second screen is the standout.

John:  Yeah, by far.  This kind of reminds me of Ghostbusters also, when you're laying your trap in front of a building.

Chuck:  The building looks good.  The glowing windows look great.  The falling people look a little like falling bananas though.  The animation isnt anything special, but the ambulance that drives past, taking away the jumpers you catch, looks cute.  The little fire truck is cool too.

John:  And its' extending ladder is a nice touch.

Chuck:  The third level reminds me of Wasteland.  It's a little too basic and the animation here looks the worst.  Two-frame animation for the fireballs looks good, for the player character not so much.

Overall the graphics look pretty good and there's a good amount of color.  One thing that's noticeable though is that nothing is smooth. All sprite movement is jerky and aside from the exploding people and pots (yes, the people explode when they hit the ground) the sprite animation is usually two-frame.

John:  The sound effects throughout the game are pretty meh.  As is typical for games of this era the explosions and crashes just sound like dirty cymbal hits.  The music, on the other hand, is fantastic and perfectly fits the manic mood of the game.  It's the best on the first level where when you die every new life is greeted by a different song.  The songs are very short, though, and when they're done, they're done.  This is very noticeable on the long second and third levels which feel too quiet.  The great soundtrack is a bit of a tease when you get down to it.  What a shame!

It seems like there's a laundry-list of complaints we have for this game, so before we wheel Rescue Squad out on a gurney, let's consider that the game was made by a kid in high school on a computer that had been out less than a year, and then got pubished by freaking Muse before he even graduates.   In that light the game looks fantastic.

Chuck:  Yes.  It's a very cool historical footnote.  Is it fun to play?  Only in fits and starts.  Too much in the first stage depends on luck and the third stage is a little too dull.  It's not a surprise this one exists as a fond memory for some, but it's definitely not as good as you remember.  It's worth a play to hear Silas' score on a real C64 though.  No emulator or java sid player does it justice.

Congratulations, Rescuers!