Handheld game from 2000

[Gary Male]

(Why did I start reviewing these? Oh yeah, punishment for injecting babies with arse-aids in a previous life. Curse you, reincarnation!)

From 2000 we have the first generation of handheld Countdown games. Built by Lexibook and endorsed by the OUP, you'd expect it to hold the whole of the NODE. And it does, almost. More on that later.

On turning the machine on you get a truly tuneless rendition of the last few seconds on the Countdown clock music, which is a terrible portend of what is to come. After entering your name you are invited to select the mode, either a contest over 9 rounds or a single round. Bizarrely the only option that is almost of any use is hidden away on an "expert" button near the base of the unit which allows you to check if any word is in the dictionary. Well, almost any word.

Well, here goes nothing. COntest mode. It's you vs, er, no-one. So it's not much of a contest. Is it really that hard to program something that at least pretends to play against you? Still, as the game dates from 2000 it mercifully means that it's only going to play 9 rounds.

First letters game and we get a selection of ROFATIBAT. Unlike the PC game from 1994, and like Apterous, the game requires potential offers to be tapped in during the round. In this version the button underneath the letter has to be pressed to choose it which works very well. Having a circular clock on a handheld game is probably asking a bit much, so a bar of 15 LEDs lighting up works quite well, especially as they go from green to amber to red. But the music? Hmm! And the volume dial doesn't go to silent so there's always a rumbling in the background.

Anyway from ROFATIBAT I find TART, TAROT and ABATTOIR but I'm not sure on the spelling of the latter word While I decide whether to risk it time elapses, at which point I'm told I've scored 8 points. Yes. it automatically takes your longest valid word and scores that for you. Why? It just encourages spamming words in. Once again instead of putting the useful feature of a word finder on the menu at the end of the round it's still tucked away on the "Expert" button. I use that to review the words I entered to find they were all valid, then press Enter which takes me to the next round. Which is stupid, it means I don't get a chance to review the top 10 longest words for potential learning.

Anyway round 2. Let's see how it handles the user trying to select too many consonants. Hmm, by letting you have 9 consonants. Oh dear. I strongly suspect the max is 0 on this round but let's see what the "Expert" says"

...

47 seconds later

...

47 seconds to tell me there are no words possible! 47 seconds! In the mid-90s I had a handheld dictionary-cum-anagram finder with other games on and that was very speedy indeed. Why is this taking 47 seconds? Sigh. Alright, let's see how it handle's trying to select too many vowels (though I suspect the answer already)

Oh dear. So the letters game is woeful. I had a game a few years ago with a selection something like LZPAORDSE. LEOPARDS isn't in the dictionary so I scored 0 points for the round. I know mistakes happen but come on! That's not even a slightly dodgy plural!

Surely the numbers game has to be better? Well, it can't even get the picking the numbers part right! 2 buttons marked 1-10 and 25-100 are on the machine. It's quite obvious what they do, but pressing one actually shows that tile on screen! So you don't like the 75 as your big number? No problem, switch to a 2 large 4 small selection! 75, 50, 100, 1, 9, 8 are the numbers, which immediately get sorted into descending order on screen. 504 is the target. Unlike the show the target number is generated by having the machine work out a randum sum (Say in this case (50-8)*100/75*9), then using the result as the target. Cunning, but not really in the spirit of CECIL. But at least it stops you being able to time a boiled egg by how long it takes to solve the game. Imagine waiting for 2 and a half minutes for the solution to arrive. It'd be like watching Rachel Riley trying to solve one***

As for the entry method, it's the complete opposite to the 1994 PC game. Here brackets are forced upon you. So why are the brackets buttons so small? Why do you have to enter a string anyway? The format of the screen and buttons virtually forces the designers to use the Apterous after-time entry method (Or the Spectrum version's method) yet they failed to implement that. Torture. Find a solution, and wrestle with the entry method, all within 30 seconds. Argh!

Surely the conundrum must be implemented sensibly? Press Enter to reveal the conundum, so far so good. LSUROCSAA is the conundrum so we can summise that the conundrums aren't preprogrammed for the reasons Charlie gave a few days ago. I have no idea but try to buzz in on the Enter button anyway. Nothing happens. So you have to enter the word normally like in the letters rounds. I enter a nonsense solution. Nothing happens. I enter a different nonsense solution. Nothing happens again. So you can guess as many times as you like within the 30 seconds as long as you can tap it in in time. As it happens, CAROUSALS is the answer which under the current conundrum convention used on the show would not be one that they'd use. So the conundrum fails in just about every way possible.

So what happens if you somehow play the game often enough for the batteries to wear down and you need to replace them? Simply slide the cover off and insert 3 new AAAs? Nope, it can't even get that right. It's got a stupid small screw holding the cover in place which means hunting around in the tool box to find something small enough to work. Utter stupidity.

So the letters game is flawed with a bad dictionary, the numbers game is flawed with a hopeless entry system, and the conundrum is flawed with invalid conundrums.

There is a 2-player option, but it means finding someone else with a machine and linking them via a connecting cable. Putting 2 people through hell is not something I feel comfortable trying.

Still, there are some plus points. The rubber grip feels nice and rubbery, and the contrast dial, er, contrasts.

Yet despite all this it is still the thing I found myself playing with most often while on the toilet in the week prior to Champion of Champions. Though for all the good that did I might as well have been wa...(snip!)

So bearing in mind all the faults you'd think someone would have another go a few years later and put right what once went wrong. And so Countdown Deluxe was born, but that's another therapy session for another day.


*** that's a joke before anyone gets uppity. She's doing very well in a high-pressure situation and I have nothing but respect for her work. Let he who solved every numbers game perfectly within 30 seconds cast the first stone.

[Charlie Reams]

Ha, very good. I think this is the version I have. We should give you a slot on the podcast.

[Neil Zussman]

I have this game too. I can't believe it's so old! The review is really quite accurate- the game is pretty poor imho. One other point I would add to the criticisms mentioned is that the letters rounds almost always produce really horrible selections- significantly worse than on the show. The letter distributions seem way off- I've gone several rounds without getting an E for example (which is obviously still mathematically possible, but unlikely- especially given the number of U's that turn up). There don't seem to be many of A,I,R,S,T or N, either. On the other hand, I've seen Q come up in at least 3 rounds in one match (though not in the same round, so at least they got that right!).
However, I suppose it is better than nothing, when I can't get to apterous. Although I wish I could make it silent, it would make it much easier to play in lectures...

[Charlie Reams]

I have this game too. I can't believe it's so old! The review is really quite accurate- the game is pretty poor imho. One other point I would add to the criticisms mentioned is that the letters rounds almost always produce really horrible selections- significantly worse than on the show. The letter distributions seem way off- I've gone several rounds without getting an E for example (which is obviously still mathematically possible, but unlikely- especially given the number of U's that turn up). There don't seem to be many of A,I,R,S,T or N, either. On the other hand, I've seen Q come up in at least 3 rounds in one match (though not in the same round, so at least they got that right!).
However, I suppose it is better than nothing, when I can't get to apterous. Although I wish I could make it silent, it would make it much easier to play in lectures...

My guess would be that they didn't bother to simulate actual "piles", so each round is drawn independently and you will occasionally get games with multiple Qs.

[Gavin Chipper]

Wasn't this the game that made Julian Fell the player he was?

[Gary Male]

Wasn't this the game that made Julian Fell the player he was?

If so, then all I can say is Lexibook, you utter bastards! If you had any manufacturing talent then Julian Fell would have scored at least 150 every game, won COC XI, and have Rachel Riley's job right now ***.

As for slightly dodgy letters game selections, that really is the least of the faults. Wait for the Deluxe diatribe. There's a raft of faults there.

*** that's a joke before anyone gets uppity. She's doing very well in a high-pressure situation etc.

[Joseph Bolas]

Awesome review Gary .

I remember having to go all the way to Runcorn just to get my hands on this game (the original).

I actually played the Deluxe version too during lunch break at COLIN (2008 I think it was) but I only used it for the number games.