One comment : the game reviews are very positive with ratings like 8/10 to 10/10. Those ratings are warranted for those games because they are indeed very good games. Now show me a stinker that gets 3/10 and tell me why. I want to see the whole scale exercised to show the true value of a 10/10.
Obviously you haven't gotten around to reading my reviews of ABBUC contest software (issue 4, IIRC) I didn't pull any punches if the game stinks. Issue 5 also has a review or two I wrote, not in the most glowing terms...but yes, most of the new home-brew games I've reviewed thus far have high scores because they ooze quality most of the time, given the time, care and attention Atari 8-bit games, especially ports from the C64, just didn't get back in the day.
And except for the occasional stand-out killer app (Space Harrier, etc.) I think most should be compared to games done in the era, just to show how much better they can be when not done on a tight schedule with small budget and by people who programmed more on the C64 or other 8-bit than the Atari. The handful of games from back then, like Lucasfilm titles, Alternate Reality games, and others that were labors of love and/or with teams and big budgets, (and no two-week deadlines to get the port done from start to abysmal finish) that pushed the hardware still hold up perfectly well alongside new home-brew games. And the Atari versions were head-and-shoulders above all the other systems that got ports from the Atari instead of the other way around for a change.
As yo will be able to compare yourself right in the pages of Excel since there was a huge spread on the Lucasfilm games and other classics already.
The old and new should be compared side-by-side, IMHO, it's not like we are comparing Xbox One games to 2600 games here you know...it's still the same hardware, mostly, maybe an extra memory chip or two...
Edited by Gunstar, Wed Feb 6, 2019 8:18 PM.