Use of Computer: 78%
Getting Started: 96%
Addictive Qualities: 82%
Value for Money: 90%
We said of Omega Run (issue 2, 87% overall) that it hovered between being a flight simulation and a straightforward game. Since then a number of flight simulations have appeared and Omega Run tends to look more like a game than a simulation, with, oddly, more similarity to Zzoom than anything.
The instructions are of a high standard, each item being very carefully explained. The idea behind it is still quite good although, looking back, it seems to lack a fair amount of content and variation, meaning its addictive qualities have dropped in comparison to later games, its a shame the 3D effects couldn't have been improved, like a moving landscape. The graphics stand up as fairly detailed, but there aren't all that many of them, its still playable when you get it out again, but doesn't have much of an addictive quality.
I thought Omega Run was a lot of fun when I first played it, although not so addictive as to keep me trying. I saw the Commodore version not long ago, expecting a vast graphic improvment, but it looked very similar, no attribute problems of course. Getting the Spectrum version out for a re-run, I left it feeling somewhat unimpressed because it does lack content, there's too much twisting and turning to shoot enemy planes down, and little else.
(Matthew) it got 90% for graphics - no way! There aren't many graphics, and there really isn't any proper attempt at 3D as in later games. No, that would have to go down to about 59% now. I'd also drop the playability rating (it got 83%) to about 63%. It's addictive gLialities were overrated too, not 82% anyway, more like 60%.
(Lloyd) Well I'd go along with most of that. I don't think Omega Run has exactly stood the test of time as well as other similar flying games.