You've managed to find your way to the end of this rag. I hope that you found it to be worth the time!
I also hope that the next issue will be an improvement over this one. I've learned a lot about what it takes to put one of these newsletters together. I'm hoping that readers will send letters explaining what they liked or disliked.
One thing about this issue that I hope to improve upon in the next issue is the graphics. I don't have any real pictures to speak of, except for Paul's great cover! If I had a scanner for my computer, it would all be easier, but I don't -- so I end up doing the old cut-and-paste thing! I'm not really into screen shots, but if I get plenty of mail saying to include a few, then I'll think about it.
I would like to receive game reviews, especially for games that are hard to find. I would like to have a percentage scale. If I were to rate, say, Pac-Man on the 2600, I would rate the graphics at 65% (functional, but barely). Gameplay would score higher, though, with maybe 80%. For comparison, I would rate the Jr. Pac-Man graphics at 80% and play at 85%.
Is this a confusing system? It works better for me, because one rating doesn't tell all. The best example I could give would be Warlords, which I would rate at 70% for graphics, but at 90% for gameplay (or even 95% in four-player mode). Starting to get the picture? Is it a bad picture? Try me. Let's see!