Monday, April 6, 2026

Games 465-467: Hewson Consultants and the 3D Seiddab trilogy

Whenever I select European computer games for coverage, there's always a bit of arbitrariness. Take Hewson Consultants - a "smaller software company" according to Wikipedia, with a ten year run of fairly consistent quality but not much impact beyond their era of ZX Spectrum and C64 games. Graftgold's Paradroid would be their first whale, and motivates me to retrospect their back catalog.

Hewson Consultants would be kickstarted by the release of the awful ZX80 computer in 1980. Andrew Hewson, an early adopter of this machine, wrote one of its earliest unofficial programming guides, and soon found himself in a position to publish ZX80 and ZX81 software written by his readers.

 

Their earliest titles are, of course, derivative and barely playable.

 
"Puckman" isn't completely horrible, but 5/6/7/8 is a stupid keyboard cluster for 2D movement.


Also on their early catalog are a series of flight simulators credited to pilot and professional air traffic controller Mike Male.

  • Pilot (1982), an IFR-only ZX81 civilian flight sim with takeoff, navigation, and landing.
  • Nightflite (1982) and Nightflite II (1983) on the ZX Spectrum, offering minimalist cockpit visuals.
  • Heathrow Air Traffic Control (1983) on the ZX Spectrum.

 

During these years, Hewson also released the aptly-titled flight simulators Dragonfly and Dragonfly II on the short-lived Dragon computer series. I have absolutely no interest in playing any of these games; I just found it interesting that flight sims make up a significant portion of Hewson's early catalog.

 

What does interest me are the first games by Graftgold's founder Steve Turner, the so-called "Seiddab Trilogy," all initially released on the Spectrum by Hewson and featuring pseudo-3D graphics.

 

Game 465: 3D Space Wars 


Ostensibly a clone of Exidy's Star Fire, but wow, look at all those Seiddabs, moving around pseudo-3D space and scaling up and down in realtime! Granted, it's not nearly as smooth as Star Fire, nor is the 3D effect very convincing, but this has to be a record for sheer number of scaling onscreen sprites in a computer game of this kind.

And honestly, I've played much worse than this. Your ship yaws and pitches with a pleasing rotational inertia which gives the combat a touch of depth beyond mindless twitch shooting. Energy management plays an important role here, too - your fuel diminishes with each shot you fire and each hit you take, and a fueling station (a possible Star Raiders influence?) found on each stage provides your only recharge, typically usable only once.

However, it's still a pretty shallow experience. There's no strategic layer and there are no subsystems to manage; your only controls are axial movement, throttle, and gunnery, and I never saw much point to touching the throttle other than using it to reach the fuel station. The Seiddabs only fire when you can see them, and the best way to minimize your own damage is by targeting them in isolation, using quick sweeps across the viewpoint so that each is on screen as briefly as possible before passing over your laser's kill zone; your forward velocity seems irrelevant.

 

3D Space Wars gets difficult rather quickly, and notably, fuel does not recharge between levels, forcing you to fight efficiently even on the "easy" rounds, or ensure failure later on. I managed to reach the fourth wave once, but I wasn't recording when I did. My best run on record reaches the third round with about half a fuel tank, and ends soon after that.

 

GAB rating: Average. It's competent enough, but there are better games than this.


Game 466: 3D Seiddab Attack


The Seiddabs have invaded earth, and oh wow is this game ugly. An abstract pattern of dots vaguely suggest a city skyline at night, but your main method of navigating will be the on-screen radar. If you can determine which dot on the map represents your tank. There's certainly some Battlezone influence here, but all you can do is aim your gun and rotate when you reach intersections.

To beat the level, you've got to locate and destroy the Seiddab task force leader, who will spawn after you kill a certain number of underlings, and can be recognized by a trail it leaves on the radar view. Missiles are also finite; run out without taking out the leader with your last shot and you die. Sometimes you just have to eat a few hits rather than waste ammo on lackeys. Between leaders, there's a brief bonus round where you shoot down Seiddabs in the countryside, your line-of-fire unobstructed by buildings and your ammo limitless.

Avoiding return fire is usually impossible, but you'll last longer if you can get the shot impacts spread out along the full width of the tank than if you let them concentrate in one spot - one cool visual detail is that chunks of metal get blasted off the tank exterior in realtime based on where they hit. But good luck with that even spread; the shot distribution weighs strongly toward the middle, and you can't even aim at Seiddabs that are too far in your peripheral (or flying too high or low).

I never managed to beat the second round, and I don't feel eager to put in the effort to learn how.

 

GAB rating: Bad. Space Wars was derivative but tolerable. This one's just ugly, confusing, and frustrating.

 

Game 467: 3D Lunattack


The final game in the Seiddab trilogy sees the fight for earth taken to the Seiddabs' lunar base, and it's the weirdest and most ambitious by far. And surprisingly, it's also the best!

Now that I've said that, let's temper our expectations a bit. It's not quite good, and it's not going to shatter any expectations of what can be done on the old Speccy. I'm not itching to play any more of it, either. But it's more original than Space Wars, more playable than Seiddab Attack, and offers smoother, more convincing 3D visuals than either.

Part of this is from improved technology; Lunattack ups the system requirement to the 48KB model, and ditches TRS-80 CoCo compatibility in favor of C64, being the first Hewson game to support the platform, if not to be designed for it. In turn, you get a zippier flight experience than its sluggish predecessors, in which you glide over the cratered surface of the moon, the terrain and ground targets staying in perspective as you bank, turn, and pitch at a silky ~10 frames per second.

Lunattack also utilizes the sparsely supported Currah μSpeech module, currently only emulated by the commercial emulator Spectaculator, and provides some ambiance and audio cues by ingame computer chatter, though it usually sounds like it's malfunctioning (air-e-al mine fi-ield, stïr carefully, the navcom crackles as you enter the aerial minefield zone).

Gameplay-wise, Lunattack reminds me a lot of Buck Rogers: Planet of Zoom for its perspective and multiple zones of extraterrestrial dangers, but plays differently enough from it that I don't presume there was direct influence.

Your first goal is to pass through the tank zone, characterized by stationary lunar tanks with slow-firing shells. Your ship's main weapon, a laser turret, takes some getting used to; shots have a delay, but always track the crosshair in motion, meaning that if you aim perfectly, pull the trigger, and jerk the ship away from the target before your shot lands, then your shot is going to miss. Better that you shoot first and then aim before it hits the surface! I've also found that, counterintuitively, the farther away a tank is on the horizon, the easier it is to hit.

Your ship is fragile, but agile. Dodging individual tank fire is pretty easy even though your hurtbox is the entire screen; just swerve away until the shell goes offscreen and you don't get hurt. It's holding still long enough to take them out without getting pummeled in return that's difficult. Fighters occasionally appear too, and are more difficult to avoid, but if you're quick to notice them, you can take them out with missiles before they enter visual range.

 

Next, there's the aerial mine zone, and the mines are not your biggest threat. That would be the mountains themselves, which look like you should be able to fly right over, but you cannot, and unlike the mines, you can't shoot them down either. You just have to fly around them, and since your damage zone is effectively the screen's entire width, this is mega annoying. But eventually you get through - the navigation computer, which is activated by moving the cursor all the way to the bottom of the screen, helps find the way forward faster, but it's certainly irritating when there's no way to go in the correct direction without crashing into a rock.

The third and final zone is full of missile silos, which are functionally the same as tanks, just faster and more damaging. Fighters spawn more aggressively too. Navigate this area, and you'll eventually locate the main Seiddab base, and it will take a few strafing runs to put it out of commission. Do it and you get to play another loop.


GAB rating: Average. Not bad, not great, but a pleasant surprise that surpassed my (low) expectations. 

Sunday, March 8, 2026

Superauthenticity: Arcade game aspect ratios

Photo by redditor AKJVermont

Early-to-golden-age arcade games, with bespoke video hardware and no real standards, pose some unique properties concerning aspect ratio and resolution. Among them are:

  • Vertically-oriented monitors
  • Vector monitors with point-plot resolution
  • Non-standard monitor configurations
  • Variable resolutions

Most of these games, even back then, were designed for a 15Khz 4:3 monitor. Even vertically-oriented arcade games would simply output a 90-degree rotated display and expect the monitor to be rotated likewise; MAME thankfully automates this for you by default. For the most part, you can achieve a reasonably authentic aspect ratio in MAME by simply letting it do its thing.

However, my superauthenticity theory speculates that some games simply didn't account for the distorting effect that non-square pixels would have on the final display, and if these games could be identified, then authentic aspect ratio is a flaw, and by using square pixels, instead of a corrected 4:3 aspect ratio, their presentation could be enhanced in a non-destructive manner.

I'm not even going to examine pixel aspect ratio here; it's too complicated to delve into that for such a wide variety of video display types, and arcade games generally had more precise video signals than console games of the day did, with much less overscan. I've already explained why it's bad to assume 4:3 DAR is authentic, but if I'm going to analyze arcade games, it's too much trouble not to.

 

Atari 

Breakout

Data Driven Gamer's first ever whale defies resolution analysis. MAME considers the resolution to be 896x252, but a raw screenshot captures at 228x1440. In reality, the video hardware was analog and any resolution capture is just an approximation.

Just let MAME deal with it. It's fine.


 

Centipede

Scaling:
DAR:

At 240x256 resolution, raw pixels give Centipede a nearly square screen layout. A vertical layout with authentically thin pixels just looks better. Right down to the font.

Verdict: 3:4

 

Star Wars

DAR:

Internally, Star Wars has a 'tall' resolution of 502x562, but this is a horizontal game. But since it plays on a vector monitor, resolution doesn't work in a typical way; 502x562 is effectively a grid of positions from which lines segments may begin or end. The line segments themselves are not bound to this grid (no staircases! no aliasing!), and because of that, the game's effective resolution is limitless.

Incidentally, vector games are a situation where I feel pixel shaders are appropriate for screenshot documentation purposes. I never use them for screenshotting raster games, as they are destructive to the raw image data, but vector games don't have raw image data, at least not in any sense that would produce a pleasing visual.

As for the best aspect ratio, MAME does provide an option to play at a tall aspect ratio, and in some ways, this actually looks better than 4:3. Fonts and 2D screen elements seem more natural, and the iconic Star Wars text crawl looks better this way. 

DAR:

But the Death Star is round in 4:3, and narrow in tallscreen, so it's clear that the artists gave some thought to the 4:3 aspect ratio. They just weren't consistent about it.

Verdict: 4:3

 

Marble Madness

Marble Madness runs slightly pillarboxed but has an output resolution of 336x240, which is extremely close to 4:3. I expect this was deliberate.

 

Paperboy

Running on a high-for-its-time-resolution 25Khz monitor at 512x384, Paperboy was designed for square pixels, and there's no other option.

 

Gauntlet

Another 336x240 resolution Atari game.

 

I think we can conclude from this that arcade game manufacturers like Atari considered display aspect ratio pretty much from the beginning. Star Wars was the only time that there was any inconsistency - I guess vector math is hard enough without also having to worry about aspect ratio. But let's look at some more, by other companies.

 

Namco 

Galaxian

DAR:

Galaxian is an odd case. The playfield, which is rendered by tile-mapping hardware, is 224x256, a 7:8 ratio. But the starfield behind it is generated independently of Galaxian's tile mapper.

Stars are not exactly pixels, but analog pulses of color on each scanline (which run vertically, not horizontally). Since each star is generated on a single scanline, a star's width is the same as a playfield pixel, but its height is smaller than one, and its vertical position can be anywhere.

MAME has to work with pixels, though, and simulates this by rendering 224 scanlines, but treats each one as being 768 pixels tall, and renders the 224x256 playfield with triple-tall pixels to fit. The simulated starfield is then 224x768, which provides a reasonable approximation of Galaxian's sub-pixel stars.

So in this case, the "raw" 224x768 resolution is definitely wrong and isn't intended to be right. Bringing the display in alignment with the playfield's 7:8 aspect ratio simply requires tripling the pixels horizontally. But an authentic 3:4 aspect ratio just looks more correct, I think.

Verdict: 3:4


Pac-Man

Scaling:
DAR:

At 224x288 resolution, Pac-Man is pretty close to a natural 3:4 aspect ratio, but different enough that some stretching occurs. But not so different, it seems, that Iwatani felt it necessary to account for this. Square pixels make Pac-Man perfectly round, the dots perfectly square, and the maze perfectly geometric.

Verdict: Square pixels

 
 

Dig Dug

Scaling:
DAR:

Another 224x288 game. Similarly, I think this looks just a bit more correct without the aspect ratio correction.

Verdict: Square pixels


Xevious

Scaling:
DAR:

Same resolution. Same thoughts.

Verdict: Square pixels


Pole Position

Scaling:
DAR:

Pole Position runs at 256x224 with fat pixels... but it just looks unnaturally stretched out that way.

Verdict: Square pixels

 

Overall, Namco seems less concerned with precise display aspect ratio than Atari did, but again, it's not consistent. Galaxian, one of their earliest games, looks better at an authentic 3:4 aspect ratio, and Pole Position, one of their most advanced of the era, looks better with square pixels, but the majority of their games ran at 288x224 where it doesn't make that much of a difference. I suspect that was a deliberate choice.

 

Midway 

Wizard of Wor

Scaling:
DAR:

Wizard of Wor runs at 352x240 and does a similar thing as Galaxian where the starfield signal is independent of the playfield pixels, but MAME doesn't use any resolution tricks to simulate this.

An authentic 4:3 requires thin pixels, and I think this looks better. 

Verdict: 4:3

 

Tapper

DAR:

Let's look the logo that Budweiser used in the early 80's:

With fat pixels, the bartender is a bit pudgy, but that banner is a pretty close match!

Verdict: 4:3

 

Spy Hunter

DAR:

Spy Hunter's got an interesting resolution of 480x480, though this is one of those situations where the sprites are drawn at a higher resolution than the background layer and MAME just uses that as the overall canvas. Long story short, Spy Hunter only looks right with thin pixels.

Verdict: 3:4


Midway, it seems, was not afraid of experimenting with strange (and often high) resolutions, and understood how to use non-square pixels.


Konami

Super Cobra

DAR:

Super Cobra and Scramble run on the Galaxian board and have the same resolution oddities due to the starfield generator.

As with Galaxian, 3:4 looks better than triple-wide pixels. 

Verdict: 3:4

 

Frogger

DAR:

We're still on Galaxian hardware, but this time the starfield generator doesn't do anything, and we're just looking at a 224x256 playfield where every pixel is tripled in height for no reason.

An authentic 3:4 once again looks the most natural.

Verdict: 3:4



 

Gyruss

Scaling:
DAR:

We're off Galaxian hardware, finally, and running at 224x256. This title screen, with the round earth, is the strongest evidence that Konami was taking non-square pixels into account.

Verdict: 3:4


Rush'n Attack

Scaling:
DAR:

So much for consistency! Rush'n Attack looks terrible at 4:3.

Verdict: Square pixels

 

Gradius

Scaling:
DAR:

Gradius has a bit more horizontal resolution than Rush'n Attack, and because of it, the 4:3 stretch isn't as pronounced, but I think this still looks better without it.

Verdict: Square pixels 

 

Nintendo

Donkey Kong

Scaling:
DAR:

We've looked at this one before when analyzing NES games' aspect ratios, and concluded that more often than not, Nintendo didn't really account for pixel aspect ratio, but sometimes they did. Donkey Kong on NES was an example where they did not; the arcade game has thin pixels and a vertical orientation, the NES has fat pixels and a horizontal orientation, and while the NES version's layout was reworked to account for this, the sprites and tiles were not.

But with the arcade original, I think they did account for the thin pixels. The rolling barrel looks rounder that way, and DK himself looks more proportionate, as do Mario and Pauline.

Verdict: 3:4

 

Donkey Kong Junior

Scaling:
DAR:

DKJr likewise looks better with thin pixels.

Verdict: 3:4

 

Popeye

DAR:

Popeye is another one of those weird cases where the sprites are drawn with much smaller pixels than the playfield pixels are. MAME gives it a canvas of 512x448.

Honestly, I think this looks better without aspect ratio correction. 

Verdict: Square pixels

 

Mario Bros.

Scaling:
DAR:

I noted before that both the arcade and NES versions of Mario Bros. seem better to me with square pixels. I still feel that way.

Verdict: Square pixels

 

Williams

Defender

Scaling:
DAR:

Defender runs at 292x240 resolution, which is pretty close to 4:3 but does stretch a bit to fit. The graphics are a bit abstract, but I don't really feel that the stretch is an improvement.

Verdict: Square pixels

 

Robotron: 2084

Scaling:
DAR:

Robotron has the same resolution as Defender, and this time I feel pretty certain the graphics are better left unstretched.

Verdict: Square pixels


Joust

Scaling:
DAR:

Joust also runs at 292x240, and looks a bit better without aspect correction.

Verdict: Square pixels


Sega

Zaxxon

Scaling:
DAR:

Sega's Zaxxon is, unambiguously, intended for thin pixels. It features a true isometric projection, but this needs the 3:4 aspect to be seen correctly.

Verdict: 3:4

 

Buck Rogers: Planet of Zoom

DAR:

Buck Rogers involves some analog video processing and MAME simulates this by setting the canvas at 224 scanlines of 512 pixels each. A double scan results in a resolution of 512x448. To me, this looks better than an authentic 4:3, which looks a bit too stretched horizontally. Either is better than raw output, obviously.

Verdict: Double scan


Space Harrier

Scaling:
DAR:

Space Harrier runs at 320x224, which is the same resolution that a lot of Genesis games would eventually run at, and has thin pixels on a 4:3 monitor. It's slight, but it's better this way.

Verdict: 4:3


Capcom

1942

Scaling:
DAR:

This looks a touch better at the thinner 3:4, I think.

Verdict: 3:4 

 

Commando

Scaling:
DAR:

Commando likewise looks better at 3:4.

Verdict: 3:4


Ghosts 'n Goblins

Scaling:
DAR:

But this one, which I did not and will not cover, looks better raw! 4:3 Arthur just seems a bit out of shape for this adventure. 

Verdict: Square pixels

 


Before this dive, I had a theory that western developers were more inclined to take pixel aspect ratio into account. Based on this sample, I can't say my theory is substantiated. While there does seem to be some correlation between region and aspect ratio awareness, it's not a strong one. Every Japanese developer here had at least some games that looked better with an authentic aspect ratio, and all of Williams' games look better with square pixels.

But there is another divide which seems much stronger - vertical vs. horizontal.

Almost every vertically-oriented game I compared looked better with a correct 3:4 aspect ratio. The sole exceptions were three by Namco, which ran very close to 3:4 anyway.

The horizontal games, on the other hand, for the most part looked better with square pixels. All of the exceptions had some unusual pixel properties; Midway's games run at strange resolutions with pixels that are either thin or very fat. Space Harrier uses thin pixels. Star Wars doesn't use pixels at all. The rest of the horizontal games here all have pixels with a PAR between 1.09 and 1.25, and I find they all look nicer with a PAR of 1.

Maybe I just have a bias towards thin pixels? I think it will be interesting to revisit this topic in the future, as vertically-oriented arcade games start to become less common, outside of niche genres.

Most popular posts