Amiga Power
Uncompromising criticism
Amiga Power rejected the cosy relationship between magazines and publishers, delivering brutally honest reviews that readers trusted and the industry feared.
Amiga Power was different, though not in the way it is usually remembered. It refused advertiser pressure, celebrated obscure gems and dismissed hyped releases — and it used the bottom of the percentage scale in a way its rivals did not. What it did not do was mark everything down.
Fast facts
- Publisher: Future Publishing.
- Run: 1991–1996.
- Editor: Matt Bielby, then Stuart Campbell.
- Approach: Brutally honest reviews.
Review philosophy
The magazine set out its position on page 20 of issue 1, and the complaint it makes is a precise one — not that other magazines scored too high on average, but that they had stopped using the top of the scale to mean anything:
“Bear in mind you won’t see the sort of high scores you might expect from other mags. After all, if you give everything 70 or 80 percent the whole concept of scoring gradually begins to mean nothing very much at all.”
| Principle | Practice |
|---|---|
| The scale should discriminate | Use its whole length, both ends |
| Honesty over access | No publisher favours |
| Gameplay over graphics | Substance matters |
| Reader trust | Say what you mean |
What the scores actually were
Both magazines published comprehensive back-catalogue indexes — AP’s recurring “The Bottom Line”, Amiga Format’s annual “Index of the Year” — which makes the reputation testable rather than merely repeated. Taking every scored row from each:
| Amiga Power | Amiga Format | |
|---|---|---|
| Games listed | 3,120 | 274 |
| Mean | 66.6 | 73.8 |
| Median | 72 | 78 |
| Below 50% | 19% | 6% |
| 90% or above | 5% | 8% |
The received account — that AP’s typical game scored 50% against everyone else’s 70% — does not survive this. AP’s typical game scored 72. Its centre sat six points below its sister magazine’s, not twenty-two.
The difference is real, but it is in the tails. Amiga Power was three times more likely to put a game below 50%, and it was stingier at the top as well, awarding 90%+ to one game in twenty where Amiga Format managed one in twelve. Issue 1 itself handed out 82, 84, 86, 90 and 91.
So the magazine did exactly what it said it would do on page 20, and it is worth being precise about what that was. It did not move the average down. It refused to let the scale bunch — spending marks at the bottom that its rivals never spent, and withholding the nineties that its rivals gave away.
⚠ The two samples are built differently: AP’s index ran continuously and is much larger, while Amiga Format‘s is four annual round-ups. Both are the magazines’ own comprehensive listings rather than a selection, which is what makes the comparison worth making, but the sizes are not equivalent.
Writing style
| Element | Quality |
|---|---|
| Wit | Sharp, clever |
| Honesty | Uncomfortable truths |
| Enthusiasm | Genuine when earned |
| Irreverence | Nothing sacred |
Stuart Campbell
Controversial editor/writer:
- Refused to compromise
- Antagonised industry
- Reader champion
- Polarising figure
Favourite games
AP championed underdogs:
- Sensible Soccer
- Speedball 2
- Obscure gems ignored elsewhere
Cover tapes
Quality selections:
- Full games
- Curated demos
- Reader trust maintained
Reader relationship
| Aspect | Approach |
|---|---|
| Letters | Genuine dialogue |
| Trust | Earned through honesty |
| Community | Dedicated readership |
Industry friction
Publishers responded to criticism:
- Advertising withdrawal
- Review copy denial
- Pressure campaigns
AP persisted regardless.
End of publication
Amiga market decline:
- Platform fading
- Readership shrinking
- Folded 1996
Legacy
Amiga Power proved:
- Honest criticism possible
- Readers want truth
- Independence has value
- Gaming journalism standards