cptgaio

Mmm, some things you write make me think that you don't have the background to judge the programming of Gambero Rosso Channel and therefore not even to give opinions (which in my view seem too hasty and superficial). The opening also seems out of place. Everything else is fine.

Oh dear, aside from you showing yourself a gentleman as usual (but I don't know if this lesson can be grasped around here), your "reaction," even if potentially offensive, is understandable. From my side, I think that even if I had insulted (which didn't happen, quite the opposite), there are cases where apologies shouldn’t be made because they don’t serve any purpose. This is one of them. Anyway, my joke about the 100 wasn’t referring to this matter. Bye.

@Vrtx & Fiquata: gentlemen, it’s not classy to take advantage of leftovers like this... come on... ;-)

Yes, indeed, the sentence really sounds like a complaint!

good night "to take away"... "to take away" obviously ;-)

I now see Nose's question: my point was more about the ideology that comes through the page rather than the details. However, reading the review gives the impression that it was the Americans who "stole" the game from the Soviets, while, and the official version says so (correct me if I'm wrong ;-) ), it was actually the game's creators who initially sold the rights to an American company (there was an auction, I believe, with another English company in the mid-'80s) and then the Soviet regime, discovering the snag, claimed the product. So you could say that it was the U.S.S.R. that took Tetris away from the Americans and not the other way around: hence the conceptual error in the credits of the title. Bye.

Soviet but not pro-Soviet perhaps? It could be a historical fact that emerges from the review, not accurate?

Well, Nose, it’s true that the author's intent may not align with what the game is or its history; indeed, he probably had no intention of doing so. However, the fact remains that it's not always possible to "play" with History and adjust it to ourselves. Maybe on DeB it is (it happens quite often, unfortunately, but sometimes also fortunately), but it makes sense that an operation like this receives harsh criticism. Then, yes, it's true, Tetris probably doesn’t need explanations (in fact, I wrote "if absurdly...": however, I think it's wrong to reason with "for me, definitely not," with all due respect), but the point is that the reviewer tells a story of his own, clearly fabricated from scratch, which makes this page an entertaining writing but not a reliable review (perhaps not even a review). And here we should then establish what DeB is and what it wants to become at this point, but I’ll stop here. Bye.

Indeed, in the title header, that USSR is quite incorrect; it would have been more appropriate to put the real authors. I agree with almost everything S4 said, although one must consider the reviewer's intent which, in my opinion, is not "revisionist" but simply "provocative" (and I think it’s fair to acknowledge that he achieved his goal), in the literal sense of the term: that said, the review offers an extremely subjective "historical" opinion/reconstruction (and I would also say, at times, intentionally, I think, incorrect) without explaining (almost) anything about the game in question (if, absurdly, someone didn’t know it, they would understand very little) and therefore, for me, while it is entertaining (if not for certain almost nonsensical passages), on the other hand, it is not representative at all. Hence the 3 given previously. However, as mentioned, I understand that pure enthusiasts of video game art might be annoyed by it.

Not the best fidelity but a nice hit. Good review.