Sean697

A good site I'm reading right now is Segadoes.com. The guy previously reviewed every US NES game. He is now reviewing chronologically every game on every Sega console. He does a good job giving retro games a fair shake. I think he calls out stinkers as he sees them and praises games that hold up well regardless of how they look. And doesn't denigrate games for outdated mechanics. As long as it makes sense within the limitations of the hardware and timeframe.

There are some people who do retro reviews good and others who don't. I think mags did a great job back in the day. Especially EGM when you had 4 opinions. I really hate the trend of bashing older games that were critically acclaimed and cherry picking your favorites to stand the test of time. Sometimes there are games that people just didn't understand at the time. Like the recently scanned EGM 10 didn't give Herzog Zwei on the Genesis glowing reviews. Yet over time as people understood RTS games it's kind of a classic. Really the first in the genre. I hated it initially too not understanding it. But once I learned to play it, it's on of my favorite Genesis games. I tend to trust magazine reviews a little more. Another instance that irked me this year is Retro magazine did on review on their website trashing Thunderforce 3. They even had the nerve to talk shit about its music. (Music that is fucking fantastic). I was like who the hell trashes Thunderforce 3? That game was amazing. It was even ported to the SNES. I replied on Twitter on how horrible a review it was. Within a day the review was taken down. Which I thought was odd. But apparently someone over there agreed.

Thanks. Amazing issue! I literally was just having a discussion on a site about the US release date of R.C> Grand Prix on the SMS and this came out and they talk about it as an upcoming game shown at the 1990 CES. (Discussion was whether it was released in 1989 or 1990.) Very timely! Also so happy I didn't have to buy this issue to scan. It was kind of pricy. Great scan. Looks real nice.

I wouldn't be surprised if was because they came up with the cool MK3 logo. And they said were going with 3.

600 dpi tiff is best. 300 acceptable. Ensure descreen option enabled in your scanner if available. 32-bit color or better. Be sure to name them simply so whoever edits it doesn't get confused. Ex. EGM 15 page 45.

Yes that EGM 76 is fantastic now.

All my aquired issues are great. I was only buying complete non damaged issues off eBay.

Also all of the issues marked in green that have no problems and are good already, I added the MD5 checksum so it can be added to the information field on our DL page for each issue. If a green entry doesn't have a value next to it, then it is probrably one of Eday's and he added the MD5 value on the DL page already.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/995n73arem0srpc/AACNPVObi13A-LF7-GfSsc2Aa?dl=0 Fixed issues 1,7,8,11,21,23,34,40,41,42,43,45,46,47,49,50,51,52,58,60,78,81,82 (Added additional cover to scan. Still need 2 more),83,84,87,90,97,98,110,117,120,121,122. There is a text file with all the MD5 checksums for these files calculated on Online MD5. All of these simply need to replace our current DL file and they are fixed with no problems. Then they can be taken off the list of issues. I'll periodically work on some of the remaining issues between new scans. Especially the ones requiring a lot of editing. Anyone who can check their real magazines against some of the faults on the main post, and verify and maybe even provide page scans, your help would be appreciated.

Interestingly, I had fixed EGM 37 and renamed the pages prior to eday updating. And the checksum I got for the fixed file was different than eday's. So I compared them both expecting to find something different. But mine fixed and his fixed were identical. The naming of pages was identical. I had fixed the offset page naming by two pages from 119 and up same as eday. We both added the same new retromags credit page. Yet they had diffent MD5 sums. I chock it up to different compression settings maybe for the zip file? Or some last minute graphic improvments? I assumed they would be identical. Anyway I can trash my fix since EGM 37 is perfect now thanks to eday.

I am currently up to issue 82 fixx9ng the easy stuff. I may have fixed some of your fixes already. I'm adding an alternate cover to issue 82 right now. I'll post tomorrow with fixed files in a Dropbox folder that can be changed out. As long as you are updating the list we shouldn't get confused. Thanks.

So now it's 1999 and earlier instead of 15 years for current magazines? I guess that's reasonable. Was hoping we would get the 2000 issues of EGM this year. Especially when I mailed them to eday for scanning in August anticipating their being allowed this year.

We have all of those issues scanned or aquired for scanning already. But if you run those magazines on the list above you can check for missing pages or mistakes. 52: Check against our scans and check for missing pages noted above. (Possibly missing page 280 and 289) 56: Need scans of pages 113-116 that are missing.

Here is a picture of all 4 covers from EGM 82.

I have. A thread listing all the EGM download links not updated yet to the server download. Eventually all these will be addressed.

Awesome. I believe this is one of the issues with multiple covers. I may have one of these with another cover. I could scan it if you wanted to add it.

I think they are a little harder to come by. Especially earlier Game Player's.

I'm still kind of new. I only got maybe 5 scans done. But maybe 10-15 sec a page. Then another 10-15 seconds to align the next page. Then 7 seconds or so to name the file. Then 30 seconds to 1 minute to straighten. Then maybe 5 minutes a page cleaning up. Sometimes less. Sometimes much more. Maybe I spend to much time editing. The results are worth it. Then color correcting, resizing,converting to jpeg take seconds as its all macroed.

Welcome Sonic. Nice to see new members rolling in.

Like I think if it was just numbers, I wouldn't even care. It's when it's numbers that don't align with the page numbers that seems off.

The complete list is up. I found a suprising number of things. Most of the perfect magazines in our collection. (Or close to anyway) are the scans E-day has done. In fact, more of them than indicated have no problems as most of the issues I marked just need to update the official DL button. I will mark them green as good after but wont ding it for having an out of date retromags credit page. There are a lot of small missing or misnamed pages here and there. There are a number of issues where it appears someone unglued the binding and scanned them. But they did not crop the edge and the pages are jagged and have glue marks. Most of these can be fixed with someone just taking all the images and fixing them in an editing program. If anyone can and has some of these issues marked with non administrative issues, could you check if you have the pages that are missing from the scans or are damaged. So we can add them to the existing scan. I would say I only found maybe 3 scans that were so bad they warranted a new scan. I have not checked the naming of the individual images in all the files yet. I feel there is a lot of leeway in how those are named far as naming convention. But there was one I saw that was the images were just named 1,2,3 etc and did not attempt to match up to the page numbers of the magazine. I think those should probably be fixed. Our guideline does address naming pages. I'll review all the files for that next. When I get a chance I'll work through and fix some of these things myself that I can. No rush on this stuff.

Deleted by me.

Personally I find it very confusing when trying to find game players 75 or ultra game players 102 and our database says totally different issue numbers than those on the cover. Especially when it's in your collection and you open Ultra game players 100 or something and the cover says a different number. If you have two separate databases for game player's and game players (or ultra game players as theredeye suggested) you don't have any gaps. That database just starts at 48 and goes up from there. Our magazine database should have descripitons on the history of magazines for all who want to know. Like where 1-47 went. It's certainly less confusing for a user looking for an issue that way. (As well as historically correct.)

Hmm we could use the status field? Or remark in the magazine description wiki page? Or even make a new sub field under preserved. I'd leave it to you or phillyman to decide how you would want to do something like that. But it would be worth doing I think.