Too Much Free Time

Discussion and reviews of games for NES, Intellivision, DOS, and others.

Thoughts on Ferguson’s Media Violence Paper

Posted by Tracy Poff on November 9, 2014

My attention was directed to a paper by Christopher J. Ferguson, to be published in the Journal of Communication, which argues that the common belief that there is a positive correlation between media violence and societal violence is false. The abstract:

This article presents 2 studies of the association of media violence rates with societal violence rates. In the first study, movie violence and homicide rates are examined across the 20th century and into the 21st (1920–2005). Throughout the mid-20th century small-to-moderate correlational relationships can be observed between movie violence and homicide rates in the United States. This trend reversed in the early and latter 20th century, with movie violence rates inversely related to homicide rates. In the second study, videogame violence consumption is examined against youth violence rates in the previous 2 decades. Videogame consumption is associated with a decline in youth violence rates. Results suggest that societal consumption of media violence is not predictive of increased societal violence rates.

The article, briefly

Since the full article is about twenty pages, I’ll summarize it here, with a bit more detail than the abstract.

Ferguson begins by establishing that there is not general agreement in the literature as to correlation (much less causation) between media violence and societal violence. He particularly argues that that laboratory studies which show an increase in aggression (e.g. an increased tendency to fill in missing letters in words to create violent words) following consumption of violent media may not correspond to increased societal violence (e.g. homicide).

The first study analyzes the relationship between violence in movies and homicide, between 1920 and 2005. To assess violence in movies, the top five grossing movies per year were taken at five-year intervals, and graded for violent content. This data was compared to statistics for murder and (non-negligent) homicide during the same years. Ferguson concludes that:

Taken together these data suggest that perceived correlations between movie and societal violence were associated with a chance concordance during the mid-20th century. Given that these phenomena were not in concordance in either the early or latter 20th century, it appears that efforts to establish causal connections between movie and societal violence based on a select set of decades were an ecological fallacy.

The second study analyzes the relationship between violence in video games and youth violence for the years 1996 to 2011. Ferguson uses sales data from IMDb and the ESA and takes the ratings assigned by the ESRB as a proxy for violent content. He concludes that there is a “remarkably strong” inverse relationship between violent video game consumption and youth violence and that, although this is no indication of causality, “Evidence from societal data does not support claims of dramatic videogame violence effects on violence among youth.”

Finally, Ferguson argues that alternate methods should be used in the future when assessing the effect of media consumption on behavior, and that professional organizations such as the APA should “retire their policy statements on media violence as such statements tend to be misleading and may cause more harm than good.” Furthermore, “Arguably, given that the results from the effects paradigm have been weak and inconsistent, it may be time for scholars to make less rather than more conclusive statements to news media regarding media effects on society.”

Unaddressed questions and other problems

Ferguson’s conclusion in the first study (namely that positive correlation between media violence and societal violence is limited to a mid-century concordance) seems undeniable. I am not similarly satisfied with the second study.

The most obvious problem with the second study is that it addresses a period of only sixteen years, and in particular that it does not even consider whether the change in rate of youth violence differed before and after the introduction of video games. Given that Ferguson strongly criticized reliance on data from a limited time span in the first study, this is fairly damning.

Second, the second study does not argue that generally increased video game consumption corresponds to an increase in the consumption of violent video games by youths. I freely admit that it is likely that this is true, but the study makes no mention of it. In general, I am not convinced by Ferguson’s ‘just look at the top five games according to IMDb’ approach to analyzing the state of gaming.

Third, the study blithely dismisses any correlation between increased incarceration and decreased youth violence, on strength of a paper by Stahlkopf, Males, and Macallair. Based on its abstract, that paper only concludes that increased juvenile incarceration does not lead to reduced crime (specifically in California). It is possible that the full paper has more useful (for Ferguson) conclusions, but I do not have access to it.

Fourth, the graphs in the paper are unclear as to what exactly is depicted. Figure 3, “Societal videogame violence consumption and societal youth violence, 1996-2011.”, is a double chart with yearly figures for the two measures in question, with scales ranging from 0-9000 for one and 0-40 for the other. 9000 what? 40 what? I have no idea.

Fifth, without commenting on the sensibility of the suggestions Ferguson makes, I would say that his statements in the “Theoretical implications” section are not supported by the studies. Ferguson argues that different theoretical approaches should be used in studying the relationship between media violence and societal violence, essentially by mentioning a variety of alternatives without arguing for their particular effectiveness. Such arguments would be better suited to a paper which actually considers the relative merit of the various approaches.

Sixth, the “Policy implications” section reads like a conspiracy theory. Selections:

As a matter of policy, consistent with the statement by the Consortium of Scholars (2013)…

…media-based policy statements released by professional organizations have so often been revealed to be flawed (e.g., Ferguson, 2013;Magid, 2011).

…it has been revealed that past policy statements were typically
developed by specially selected researchers heavily invested in antimedia views, with no dissenting voices (Ferguson, 2013).

That is, problems have been ‘revealed’ by the author of this paper. The ‘statement by the Consortium of Scholars’ mentioned is an open letter of which Ferguson is a signatory, and the source of which is Ferguson’s personal website (which, incidentally, looks more like the geocities homepage of a teenager than the website of a professional academic).

The reference to Magid links to a paper published in Pediatrics (by O’Keeffe and Clarke-Pearson), but the actual reference listed is to an article in Huffington Post which responds to (and disputes) the journal article. Why Ferguson would obfuscatingly link to the article in Pediatrics rather than the one in HuffPo to which he actually referred is a mystery.

Additionally, take note of “…some scholars have argued…(Males, 2013).” That reference is not to a scholarly paper, but what seems to be simply an opinion piece published by (and a broken link, besides–here’s a working one).


The results of the actual studies in the paper seem fairly inoffensive, but do not support the discussion. It seems very like Ferguson wanted to pontificate about perceived problems in his field, and conducted a couple of very minor studies in order to have an excuse for publication.


First, I have not studied psychology. I studied math at uni, so except insofar as the paper uses statistical analyses, I have no formal education relevant to this paper.

Second, as I do not have access to a university library, I have not been able to review all of the paper’s references. It is possible that some or all of my objections were answered by the cited papers.

Third, I am (obviously) a gamer, and inclined to agree with the results of the studies in this paper, despite my objections to the academic rigour of the paper. It is possible that I have been too lenient with the studies for this reason.

Posted in General Commentary | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

IFComp 2014: One Night Stand

Posted by Tracy Poff on October 19, 2014

The third game I’ve played from the 2014 ifcomp is One Night Stand by Giannis G. Georgiou. You play Sandy, a woman who is trying to discover the name of the man she just spent the night with.

One pre-spoiler note: the download from the comp website just has an HTML file with a link to a web-based version of the game, but the story file can be downloaded, if you follow that link. You’ll need a Quest interpreter to play it.

(This post contains spoilers. Read at your own risk.)

First, a note about online play: the online interpreter was rather slow to react, occasionally taking many seconds to complete a command, and usually missing the first few characters of each command I typed, since it was still scrolling the response text. This was irritating, but it otherwise worked fine, and it was at least visually attractive. Not ideal, but better than nothing, given that I don’t actually have a Quest interpreter.

ONS is a short comedy game with one puzzle sequence. I spent about 35 minutes prodding everything in the game before I finished, but I imagine 10 minutes would more than suffice, if you just proceed toward the goal–and particularly if you aren’t using the rather slow web-based interpreter.

I appreciate the customized responses to trying to take various objects, and the randomly chosen sections of text (e.g. when knocking on Mara’s door) are a nice touch. The ending, though not entirely unexpected, is a good enough payoff for the few minutes the game takes to complete.

On the other hand, you don’t have any real options–either you proceed linearly through the story, or you don’t proceed at all. I wanted to try tricking the dude into saying his name. To break down in tears to avoid the situation. To call him Rumpelstiltskin, if his name is so important. Anything to have some choice–but I had none. More mundanely, there are few objects implemented, and no real, interactive NPCs. The parser is a little obtuse, too: you’ve got to knock door or use bottle on floor, which aren’t exactly the first commands that came to mind.

Overall, an average-quality game, which would probably be more at home in the first ifcomp than the twentieth.

Post-review pre-posting note: Okay, I think this review needs an addendum. Other reviewers seem to be unanimous in despising this game. It was my assumption throughout the game that it was a work of parody–the several-inches deep layer of grease on the kitchen floor not a greater exaggeration than the PC’s absurd internal monologue. Surely the game is so stupid exactly because it’s undermining its nominal position. Of course, while writing the review, I was under the impression that the author was a woman (Wrong! Giannis is a Greek name which is the masculine form Gianna. The more you know.), and that therefore the PC must be a parody of the ridiculous caricatures of women we see in games and other media (maybe not?).

It’s against my policy to change my judgment after reading other reviews, so I’ll let this review stand as-is. I’d rather be too generous in my assumptions about other people than too harsh. In retrospect, though, if you take seriously the bits that I assumed to be failed comedy, then the game really does become rather unpalatable… so take this review with a grain of salt.

Posted in 2014, Freeware, Full Review, Interactive Fiction, Platform Independent | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

IFComp 2014: Raik

Posted by Tracy Poff on October 17, 2014

The second game I’m looking at this year is Raik by Harry Giles, which is written with Twine. According to the blurb, it is “A scots fantasia about anxiety. Battle kelpies, watch TV, avoid your emails and find the magical Staff of the Salmon.” Sounds amusing!

(This post contains spoilers. Read at your own risk.)

My spoiler warning above goes double for this game. Really definitely don’t read this without playing the game. I mean it.

When you start the game, you’re advised that you can “Learn about Scots and use a translator at“, and you are presented with a pair of links: gang and go. It looks from the outset as if the game is simply available in two languages–Scots and English–for flavor, and the “Translate to Scots” and “Translate to English” links that appear reinforce this. The text is even very similar in shape in each language. However, this is only a facade: there are two stories being told, and they are superficially unrelated.

In the Scots-language story, the PC struggles through the day, trying to fill time: “If ye can get tae hauf five, mebbe ye can get tae dinner, than mebbe ye can get tae bed.”

In the English-language story, the PC is on an epic quest: “You are searching for the Staff of the Salmon, whose magic alone will release your clan from the withering curse of Black Edward.”

At the bottom of each page of text is an option to ‘translate’ into the other language, which actually presents not a translation but the section of the story which is in the corresponding position in the other language: the stories are structurally the same. They are related in more ways that one: at the end of the English-language story, “You imagine another version of yourself, who stayed in bed that fateful day and even now lies frozen in time, unable to act, an endless scream seeking only relief.” In the most recent corresponding part of the Scots-language story, the PC is paralyzed by a panic attack.

My interpretation: the Scots-language story is ‘real’, and the English-language story is the PC’s way of dealing with life–or of not dealing with life, as the case may be.

The duality of the stories is very cool and well done. Though you could (mostly) play them separately, the English-language story serves as commentary on the Scots-language story. For example, when the PC of the Scots-language story is (figuratively) lost in a panic attack, the PC of the English-language story is (literally) lost in a maze. It’s an impressive way to use metaphor.

The individual stories are well-crafted, too. I particularly liked the use of links to pace the story. Early on, links interrupting the text make the story seem to move slower, but later they make the pacing seem more frantic–well done!

You’ll note that my praise is all for ‘meta’ aspects of the game–this is not an accident. The actual game isn’t all that interesting. The Scots-language story is dull (but it’s supposed to be, since it’s the ‘real-world’ part of the game) and the English-language story is far from engaging. However, the game is quite short (about fifteen minutes for a single playthrough), so this wasn’t a problem.

The language aspect could prove something of a problem. It’s easy enough to tell the general sense of the Scots-language story, but for most readers there will be many specific terms that require definition. It’s certainly the author’s intention to induce readers to learn more about Scots, which is fine, though I wonder how much effort the (non-comp-judging) general public will be willing to expend on comprehension. My own experience with Scots (other than Robert Burns) is limited to an encounter with the Scots Wikipedia, some years ago. At the time, I judged that the editors were treating Scots as a somewhat more dignified version of leet-speak, and put it from my mind. It seems to have done better since, though it still has very few editors.

According to the author, Raik was inspired by Depression Quest, which I have not yet played. I’d like to come back to this game after playing Depression Quest, to see how it affects my opinion. At any rate, I foresee myself continuing to revisit and think about this game in the future, which is about the highest praise that can be given to a ‘serious’ game like this.

Play time: about 40 minutes for several playthroughs.

Posted in 2014, Freeware, Full Review, Interactive Fiction, Platform Independent | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

IFComp 2014: Hill 160

Posted by Tracy Poff on October 17, 2014

A new year brings a new ifcomp. The first game, this year, is Hill 160 by Mike Gerwat, billed as “A World War I Adventure in Terror”. This appears to be Gerwat’s first comp entry, though he has released another game, Genesis Quest, which is available on the ifarchive.

(This post contains spoilers. Read at your own risk.)

Sadly, this first game is one I couldn’t finish. The author indicates that this game has been made easier to comply with the comp rules (the two-hour rule, I suppose), but I sincerely doubt that anyone will finish the game, because the walkthrough is a bit over 700 commands long. To complete the game you’d need to execute one (correct!) command every ten seconds. Judging by the walkthrough, in 48 minutes I got through about a sixth of the game.

If the game were only too long, I would have continued to play for the full two hours games are allotted. Unfortunately, the game has three crippling flaws: first, it is tedious; second, it is unfriendly (more on this later); third, it is buggy.

The tedium is, I presume, intentional: it’s intended to reflect the tedium of war. To that end, the game involves plenty of actions that are boring, repetitive, or both. The walkthrough contains (from about 700 turns) 57 turns of waiting, 19 turns of sleeping, and 16 turns of ‘again’, which are mostly sleeping or waiting. When you are acting, you are often doing something like drop pants / crap in trench / pull up pants.

The unfriendliness is the main reason I gave up. Any little thing you do that isn’t according to script will generally end the game. Leave the latrine without using it? “You didn’t take your shite! GAME OVER MATEY!”. Walk onto the battlefield without cleaning your rifle? “You didn’t clean your rifle! GAME OVER MATEY!”. Try to take the supplies you’re after, rather than asking for them? “GAME OVER MATEY!”.

It’s not generally obvious what you’re meant to do until you’ve already failed. How was I to know I had to clean the rifle? It’s description didn’t mention anything. For that matter, how was I to know I had to attach the bayonet myself? The game over message tells me that “Your rifle is missing a critical part.”, but attempting to examine it again gives me “You’ve already examined the rifle.”. The game won’t let you examine anything twice, or talk to anyone twice. If you don’t have a transcript, you’d better have remembered the names of the members of your platoon–you won’t be seeing them again!

It’s not always obvious how to accomplish things, either. When you’re sent for supplies, trying to simply take them from the supply party gets you killed, but talk to party gives “You can’t talk to the supply party.” In fact, you must ask party for supplies. But talk to grant worked, earlier. The requirements are inconsistent. Once, when talking to Grant, you must salute (or game over!), but later, saluting isn’t necessary.

Finally, the game is buggy. If you talk to Grant in the Main Trench before going out on the recon mission, he gives the speech that he gave earlier about you needing to go pick up supplies. Waiting repeatedly will repeatedly give the text about Grant arriving. Sometimes waiting will just do nothing with no message at all. And it’s not strictly a bug, but take all should not open up every container and fill my inventory with several screens worth of cigarettes and grenades and things. It should just pick up the items I dropped. Very irritating!

All that said, the game does have its good points. The author indicates that it’s intended to be fairly realistic, based on his over 40 years of study, and there are plenty of interesting details. There are some detailed descriptions of certain items, and the language and situation are (apparently–the first World War is not my forte) also intended to be realistic. For my part, I’d enjoy it more simply exploring the environment than having the game nag at me about every minor detail (and the author promises that “When it goes up on the archive, it will be much harder with Release 2.” Not necessary!).

Hill 160 has potential, but I won’t be returning to the current release.

Play time: 48 minutes.

Posted in 2014, Freeware, Full Review, Interactive Fiction, Platform Independent | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Software in the Age of Sneakernet: A Pictorial

Posted by Tracy Poff on October 9, 2014

I’ve spent the last few weeks fighting with a screen recorder to get a good demonstration of a hypertext word processor. A power outage caused me to lose my carefully prepared sample document, so while I recover from the pain of loss, let’s take a look at something different: packaging.

These days, a lot of software is distributed digitally, and even software distributed on disk is often packaged in no more than a keep case, but it used to be that when you bought a piece of software, you really got your money’s worth. Boxes, manuals, stacks of disks–you could measure software by the pound.


Item number one: an upgrade kit for OS/2 2.0. I’ve scanned the front and back, if you’d like a better look. It’s a fairly unassuming little box, but inside…


four different manuals (“Migrating to the OS/2 Workplace Shell”, “Getting Started”, “Using the Operating System”, and “Installation Guide”), a pile of legal documentation, a rather shiny proof of license, twenty-one 3.5″ diskettes, and, to top it off, a roll of stickers.


My copy of WordPerfect 5.2 for Windows came with a catalog (Issue 4–collect them all, I suppose) full of ancillary material, including fonts and instructional videos, a heavy cardboard folder containing a license certificate, and, most importantly, one of these:


A plastic keyboard overlay! Once, keyboards had room above the function keys for one of these, and for complex software, they were very necessary, at least until you got used to the software.


Of course, you didn’t always need a hefty manual–particularly if you already owned one. This ‘additional license’ version of WordPerfect 5.1 (suggested retail price: $295 US) contains a license certificate, a keyboard overlay, and not much else. From the back of the box:

This Additional License Package is sold to you based on your certification that you are an authorized and licensed user of this version of this WordPerfect Corporation (“WPCorp”) software product.

This package includes a license and templates, but does not include manuals of disks.

A full-size software box for basically just a piece of paper. Dead tree edition, indeed.

Posted in General Commentary | Leave a Comment »

Nihongo Word Processor v1.10

Posted by Tracy Poff on September 20, 2014

The second X68k word processor I’ll look at is the “SHARP X68000 日本語ワードプロセッサ Ver 1.10″, produced circa 1990 by Sharp itself. It is credited with programming by H. Nakamoto and management by H. Tanaka.

Nihongo Word Processor v1.10

For being only about two years newer, Sharp’s Nihongo Word Processor (henceforth, NWP) looks much nicer than EW. Its interface reminds me very much of classic Macintosh programs. Coincidentally, the Mac also used a Motorola 68000 CPU, though somehow I doubt it influenced interface design.

Besides being pretty, NWP is a perfectly serviceable word processor, with the standard features, plus one very neat divergence from the norm: on the right side of the screen is a pinboard with two notes attached to it. These represent the dual clipboard arrangement NWP uses. The left clipboard holds text which has been cut, and the right text which has been copied. There are separate paste commands for each.

It’s a minor thing, perhaps, but it’s exactly the kind of uniqueness that makes me interested in software from this era. At this time, the clipboard functionality was provided by each program individually, rather than by the operating system (and its associated standard libraries), so the implementation is a conscious choice by the developer.

As you look further back in software history, you can see different interface paradigms contending against one another for mindshare, each representing a different developer’s idea about how the interface ought to be. Single clipboard with no history won this particular battle, though there are outliers like emacs’s kill ring or the various ‘clipboard managers’ that provide something extra for the power user.

It looks like NWP shipped with certain models of the X68k. A positive bargain!

Posted in 1990, Word Processor, X68000 | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Tracy Poff on September 19, 2014

Now that I’ve looked at the two major players on PC, let’s take a look at some word processors for other platforms, beginning with the Sharp X68000.

EWThis word processor is identified as “X68000 Word Processor << EW >> Version 1.20O”, a 1988 release by EAST Co., Ltd. (which company still exists, by the way).

EW looks quite similar to other word processors from the eighties: simply and ugly, including the (inexplicable!) choice to display hard returns on screen. Its ruler also measures not the size of the text on the page, but the number of columns occupied by the text. Fully 96 (half-width) columns are available.

You interact with the program’s extended features by either pressing escape to select from the menu, or pressing control key combinations to access other functions.

EW doesn’t have quite the feature set of WordPerfect, but it’s much lighter–roughly 900k, of which 388k is the dictionary. Being small may not be sufficient excuse for being ugly and limited, though: if my brief foray into historic Japanese sources (vintage 1989/1990–practically ancient!) doesn’t mislead me, EW wasn’t a well-regarded piece of software.

Posted in 1988, Word Processor, X68000 | 6 Comments »

Microsoft Word 5.0 (DOS) & Microsoft Word 1.1 (Windows)

Posted by Tracy Poff on September 19, 2014

Like the last post, this one is a double feature. Sadly, unlike WordPerfect 5.1, which was released for both DOS and Windows with the same version number, MS Word used different numbers for is DOS and Windows version. So I’ve arbitrarily picked a DOS and Windows version each released at around the same time as WordPerfect 5.1 to look at.


On first glance, MS Word 5.0 for DOS, released in 1989, looks fairly similar to WordPerfect 5.1. It’s a big blue screen with some status info at the bottom. But that’s not quite all. In Word, the toolbar is constantly visible at the bottom, taking up several lines, and the text entry area is surrounded by a box. This box isn’t just for show, though: you can choose to split the view into many different windows, which each may contain different documents. In practice, splitting the screen into more than two windows is probably not very useful, since the available space will be tiny, but it’s still a nice feature.

As for the toolbar at the bottom, though, that’s a waste of space. They should have just devoted a bit of space on the bottom line to say “Menu: Esc”, or something, instead. I give them half credit for the interface.


MS Word 1.1 for Windows, released in 1990, looks more like what we’re familiar with from Word. With the standard menu-and-toolbar interface, it’s a fairly usable word processor, even if it has some quirks in the display.

Word 1.1 does have a big flaw, though: when I tried to open in Word 1.1 the document I made in Word for DOS, it actually crashed DOSBox! It did successfully open the document I made in WordPerfect 5.1, though… I think I’m going to have to give this point to WordPerfect.


Furthermore, opening the documents I made in either the DOS or Windows version of Word in Libreoffice yields a bunch of garbage. I know that technically it’s not Word’s fault if a piece of software written a quarter century later doesn’t properly import its documents, but it’s still a sad lack of longevity.

In short, 1989’s version of MS Word had some neat tricks with the multi-window interface, but I prefer the minimalist (and less-space-wasting) WordPerfect interface. WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows looks better than Word 1.1 for Windows, too, though both were apparently rather buggy, so they’ll be winning no awards: above all, software must work, after all.

WordPerfect was still king of word processors at this point, but over the course of the 90s, its crown would be stolen by Word, leaving the once-mighty application little more than an also-ran, relegated to filling out the OEM software stack of budget PCs.

Posted in 1989, 1990, DOS, Windows, Word Processor | Leave a Comment »

WordPerfect 5.1

Posted by Tracy Poff on September 16, 2014

Technically, this blog is meant to be about video games. But I’ve written about hardware and magazines and books and whatever this is, so I figure anything fitting broadly under the retrocomputing banner is fair game.


This one may be familiar to you. WordPerfect 5.1, released in 1989, was quite a popular word processor, and it persisted for many years. In fact, it seems that people still want to use it to this day. It was used in my keyboarding class, in high school, so this is a bit of nostalgia for me.


When you first open WordPerfect 5.1, you’re greeted with a blank, blue screen, plus some details about the current position of the cursor. I’m fairly sure this violates a few interface design principles. On the other hand, considering that WordPerfect cost hundreds of dollars, perhaps they expected people to be willing to read the manual.


Once you know how to use it, WordPerfect 5.1 is a powerful word processor, capable of doing pretty much anything you’d like. More modern word processors may be prettier, but all of the basic functions were there. The image above is what WordPerfect calls draft mode–a semi-WYSIWYG display suitable for general use. You could also turn on ‘reveal codes’ mode, which displays markup in a manner reminiscent of HTML or BBCode:

A blank, blue screen is just so… [Italc On]inviting[Italc Off]… wouldn’t you say?[HRt]

Naturally, when printed, the document would actually use italic or bold text, or whatever other formatting was selected. WordPerfect was intended, after all, for preparing documents for print, not for display on a computer screen. All of the various options could be accessed either though a menu (activated with Alt+=) or through some combination of modifier and function keys.


The Windows version of WordPerfect 5.1, released in 1991, defaults to a WYSIWYG view that should seem familiar modern computer users. It does still support draft mode and ‘reveal codes’ mode, for those who long for the (shall we say) simplicity of the DOS version.

I never used the Windows version of WordPerfect 5.1, back in the nineties. The word on the internet seems to be that it’s very buggy, which is a shame, since it seems like a fairly usable word processor, otherwise.


Just for fun, I tried just double-clicking the document I saved in WP 5.1 for DOS, opening it in LibreOffice. As you can see, it opens and renders flawlessly, despite the programs being released 25 years apart–a true standard-bearer for backwards compatibility! It makes me wonder if the present incarnation of WordPerfect could do the same.

I could spend pages discussing all the features of WordPerfect 5.1, but I really just wanted a quick look at it, to allow for comparison, so this much will suffice. I’ll write similar overviews of other contemporary word processors (Coming soon! Maybe.) and other applications, to show some of the variety in software on the market. There was a great deal of evolution in a fairly short time, so it should be interesting to see how they compare.

Posted in 1989, 1991, DOS, Windows 3.x, Word Processor | 1 Comment »

Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon S: Quiz Taiketsu! Sailor Power Shūketsu!!

Posted by Tracy Poff on July 16, 2014

Today, I’ve got something else obscure to look at: Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon S: Quiz Taiketsu! Sailor Power Shūketsu!! (original title: 美少女戦士セーラームーン S – クイズ対決! セーラーパワー集結!!), a Sailor Moon quiz game for the Bandai Playdia.

Sailor Moon S Quiz (Playdia) - cover

Once again quoting my description on MobyGames:

Tsukino Usagi and her friends, the Sailor Senshi, are attending a lecture by a picture book author, Misaki Asako, when a Daimon called Quiz appears to steal Asako’s pure heart crystal.

There is one stage for each of the five Sailor Senshi (Sailor Moon, Sailor Mercury, Sailor Venus, Sailor Mars, and Sailor Jupiter), which may be played in any order. In each stage, the player must answer a series of twenty multiple-choice questions, testing his or her knowledge of the Sailor Moon anime, which represents a battle against a sub-boss. Upon successfully completing a stage by answering at least 16 questions correctly, the sub-boss is defeated, and the player receives a password, after which another stage may be selected.

Upon receiving all five passwords, the player may restart the game and enter the passwords, unlocking the final stage, in which the five Sailor Senshi are joined by Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune for a final twenty question quiz.

Throughout the game, there are clips of animation in the style of the anime. Upon completing the game, a karaoke version of the anime’s opening theme is played over clips from the game.

Playdia-Console-Set” by Evan-AmosOwn work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

A few words about the Playdia itself would not be amiss, I think. It was a CD-based console, released in Japan in 1994, reminiscent of the (similarly doomed) CD-i. Most of the console’s library (according to Wikipedia, which has a list) was quiz or edutainment software, and much of it seems to be licensed titles based on anime. The first three games (according to GDR), released on 1994-09-23, were based on Dragonball Z, Sailor Moon S, and SD Gundam. The Playdia currently has no emulator available, so the only way to play these games is to buy the console. It looks like they’re around $150 on eBay, and this particular game will set you back a further $50, so I don’t recommend it.

I based my description on a scan of the manual and a video playthrough, both provided by They are also the source of the screenshots in this post.


Title screen


Opening movie

The game opens with a brief animated movie setting up the plot. I’ll not recapitulate that here–you can read the description above. The quality of the animation is quite on par with the TV anime. It is perhaps a little more static than the anime, but it’s well drawn and the video output by the game is of good quality.


The first thing the the player must do is decide whether to begin at the beginning of the game, or to enter a password and skip the first five stages, going straight to the final quiz. This is, I suppose, because the Playdia doesn’t appear to support any kind of saved games. Passwords are the only option. The password is in the form of five pictures which the game reveals, one after each successfully-completed stage.


The player can choose the order in which to take on the first five stages, but all five must be completed before proceeding to the final stage. Unless, of course, the password  has been gotten some other way.


The game itself is simply a series of multiple-choice trivia questions. There are twenty per stage, and six stages (counting the final stage), making 120 questions per complete playthrough. The back cover of the game boasts 300 questions, so I assume that they are randomized. Questions are generally read aloud by some character in the game.

The questions on Usagi’s stage are related to the Sailor Moon anime. The question above, “「つきにかわて、おしおきよ」は、だれのせりふ?” (“In the name of the Moon, I will punish you” is whose line?), is very simple, but they do get progressively harder. The nineteenth question on Usagi’s stage asks for the name of Prince Demand’s younger brother. Demand was a character in the previous season (Sailor Moon R), which had recently finished airing. Despite its title, this game was released right in the middle of Sailor Moon S, so it’s no surprise if it’s not filled with questions about the still-airing season.

The other stages have questions on other topics. Minako’s question number seven, for example, asks who was born from a flower: Oyayubi-hime (Thumbelina), Kaguya-hime (from a Japanese folktale), or Shirayuki-hime (Snow White). Ami’s question number one asks what kind of shoes to wear on a rainy day: rubber boots, slippers, or sandals.

After ten questions, a clip of the currently-selected character’s transformation sequence (straight out of the anime) is played, followed by the remaining ten questions. If the player has answered at least sixteen questions correctly, the password from that stage is revealed. Otherwise, the player is encouraged to try again. Either way, a clip is played of the stage’s boss being defeated.


Upon successfully completing all five stages, the player may restart the game and choose to enter the password. A series of five doors are presented, each offering a choice of four pictures, one of which is the correct password for that door. After the correct password is entered, another anime clip plays, in which Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune join the others, and the final stage begins. More Sailor Moon trivia is in store (question 10: What was the name of Chibiusa’s first love, the genius artist?).


Incidentally, the questions are not purely text based. In the above case, the Daimon asks who is displayed in those pictures.


Following the completion of the game, a short closing animation is played, followed by a karaoke version of Sailor Moon‘s opening theme, “Moonlight Densetsu”.

And that’s the game! It’s actually not that bad, I suppose, as trivia games go. Certainly far too easy for any but fairly young children, but I suppose that young fans of the series might have enjoyed the game.

It looks like there were actually four games for the Playdia based on Sailor Moon. Considering that there were only about thirty games in total, that’s a pretty substantial amount. Fortunately, has manual scans and gameplay videos for those available, as well, so I’ll probably write something about them, in the future. It’d be nice to be able to write about the console’s complete library, but I suspect that it’ll not be so easy to get details on all of the games. I won’t shy away from the detective work, though, so we’ll see how it goes.

Posted in 1994, Bandai Playdia, Decent, Full Review, Trivia | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.