Stuart Campbell

Jonathan is, of course, foolishly wrong about at least two things here. Firstly, there was no best-to-worst policy - for the first couple of issues it just kind of turned out that way, and from then on there was no real relation, and certainly no deliberate one.

The games which got the longer reviews at the front of the mag were, by and large, the ones deemed most interesting, rather than the simple best. Hence, a partially-successful take on a good new idea warranted more space than a well-executed genre piece. This, I feel, is a Good Thing.

Also, most proper, real-world magazines with major review content split it up (including Jonathan's much-loved...

Jonathan Nash

(Though little-bought. Ah! Ah! Ah!)

.. YS). Personally, there's little I like more in a games magazine than reading a load of reviews, taking in some features and other bits, then suddenly and joyously discovering a whole other clutch of reviews nearer the end, just when it looked like it was all over.

This, in fact, assists greatly in stopping the mag from tailing off in the manner that Jonathan so rightly dislikes, and it was a sad day indeed when the practice was ended.