mumbai

n/m ... it'll come back

I've had one. I've seen others. It's a production sample / review copy. Far as I know, "RLS" does stand in for "Release". For comparison, see also an example from the Atari 2600: http://www.atariprotos.com/2600/software/monty/61184.htm (I disagree with the labeling as a "prototype", except in a loose sense.)

It's not a prototype. It is Montezuma's Revenge.

Or they could train you? Four-player Laser Pointer Chase coming to your ColecoVision...

Reading this announcement and thread, I now regret the lack of an Odyssey in my life. Bravo.

Until I play farther and hit a wall, IMO I wouldn't classify the current speed as an issue. I do recognize that I'm on the short end of 2-to-1 opinion polling at this point, though.

I've only given it a casual spin so far, and it is a little racy, but not insanely or intolerably so. If the gameplay speed continues to cause people headaches, perhaps add a difficulty selection screen where the degrees of difficulty set the rate of play?

👍

I recall from the last time I ran through a variety of 2600 titles on the expansion, before resorting to the port extender, that a greater number of carts than expected were either no-go's or frightfully tight fits, even among more mainline constructions (e.g., the '86 Atari Corp. and Activision carts were incredibly cramped, if my hand-scribbled notes are to be trusted). I do not know what Coleco was thinking, though I presume most, if not all, physically incompatible cartridges had yet to be released ... though that doesn't excuse hewing more closely to Atari's port design and avoiding the headache of issuing an extender.

I think the biggest initial issue with using the supercharger with expansion module #1 will be its fit. I'm near certain that the supercharger belongs to the class of atari 2600 cartridges that the expansion module cannot physically accommodate without use of coleco's port extender or similar workaround. If you cannot dock the supercharger, all other concerns are mooted.

I believe that the stress you place on "the reality of the situation" boiling down to "an unwritten 'handshake'" (a sentiment expressed in several different ways above) belies a claim to lack of bias in presentation. My opinion, nothing more. And I don't think much beyond a second one way or the other about the knowledge possessed by, inner workings of, or decisions from companies with an intellectual or financial stake in these matters. To suggest otherwise would be folly for anyone who isn't a fly-on-the-wall.

Because (at least within the United States) there is a legal obligation to police and enforce trademarks registered with the USPTO. It's that simple. That is the "why" insofar as trademarked properties are concerned. You are correct that someone can choose to do as they please and ignore the rights of others, framing it as David v. Goliath, hombrewer v. corporation, community v. money, etc. Such behavior does not negate those rights, nor the responsibilities to defend them as required.

Or reworked for early readers (given the age range), it all boils down into something like this while retaining multiple exclamations typical of '80s box copy: The Royal Mathemagicians' experiment backfired--both have turned into frogs! Now they must hop to the castle to get the magic antidote. Unfortunately, there is enough for only one! Players arrange numbers into mathematical equations to move the frogs. The result [of each equation] determines how far. A built-in "coach" helps players improve game strategy! .

None of the suggested edits are necessary in terms of grammatical correctness. The substitutions of "antidote" for "magic" and "result" for "value" do strike me as improved word choices, though. Having not played the game, I cannot say whether it would be better to say that numbers are "arranged" into equations rather than "combined". Guess I couldn't help myself, either.

The offering is intended solely to address concerns about unrestricted access to the data without need for preinstalled software (as raised by zyzzle)? Or something more?

Two concerns, here. One "on the ground": as you rightly surmise, this will rapidly become a usability headache, both for consumers of the information (obscured presentation) and producers (data repetition). Reproducing hypertextual linkage such as this to extended characteristics of titles is better managed and served in an environment other than a spreadsheet. It is probably better to find a more fitting medium to convey such information than bend any particular spreadsheet format to that end. The other is more "up in the air": this sort of information moves farther afield from the current nature of the database, especially with regard to the two audiences that Pixelboy has identified. As things stand, I'm struggling with how to suggest additions to the current store that will not necessitate footnotes to outline variations in the indexed materials. There are already numerous footnotes that ought to be (in my opinion) integrated within the tabular data themselves so as to permit easier row-by-row evaluation without having to consult additional information that doesn't fit nicely within the construct of a spreadsheet. This is not to say what you propose isn't a laudable goal. What I do mean to say is that in the short term it may prove more fruitful to correct, unify, and perfect the presentation of what is there before adding additional layers of information within a document format that is less than ideal for interoperable, transparent presentation. (Altogether uncertain whether I'm explaining this position clearly, even in broad strokes.)

This.

As a secondary format, great. As the primary format, provided there's no need to hold a Google account to access, maybe.

Thanks. I'll dig around (much, much, much ) later to determine why Helvetica (+ Neue) are reported as in use in the original spreadsheet.

Another case of this would be Amazing Bumpman/Number Bumper. A more consistent scheme might permit removal of footnote 4 on the Telegames sheet if variance between given title and canonical name for a game were integrated within the row data.

...which leads to another detail-oriented issue: the inconsistent manner in which games with doctored retitles are presented within the spreadsheet. Sometimes the original title is supplied parenthetically, other times not, and elsewhere it's the altered title that's provided parenthetically (e.g., '(as "Rocky")' within the Telegames sheet). It's unclear whether the Super Action Football of Mania's "Football (Super Action Football)" is the American Football or European Football game, too.

(The AA forum ate my split reply; pardon the condensed reply.) We were discussing the carts last year. Gorf is in my collection. I haven't photographed it to date. I believe I have seen blisterpaks other than Time Pilot. Must sift through my disorganization to confirm. Definitely possess manuals in the blisterpak style for games other than just Time Pilot (Apshai and a few others). If the angle of attack is sheet title shortening, there are other approaches than to create goofy number ranges than "85-13". Full-year representation adds four characters per instance. But I agree that the structuring and sheer number of sheets is itself an obstacle. Given how awkward (for me) the refreshed forum interface is for splitting a quoted block into several without fiddling about, when I have time to offer things of greater substance I'll avoid omnibus posts. Thanks for being flexible.

.

Well, when I have time to be more than a nuisance, I'll shatter the peace with variations and such that I suspect aren't in the list at present...

Might it be better to replace such instances with UTF equivalents (where possible) in an already used typeface, rather than use Wingdings? Somewhat confident that the former offers greater interoperability than the latter. Could be wrong, though.