“Shelby turns the corner, gets a key block to throw it and they can’t bring him down until he gets to the 41-yard line for a 16-yard pick-up and Cardinal first down!” It was his first time starting 3 IN 1 COLLEGE AND PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL and he really wasn’t expecting much. I noticed that the team data disc listed both the University of Louisville Cardinals and their Metro rivals, the University of Cincinnati, in the 1983 college supplement section. He had served as a security guard during the season. from Louisville in 1981 and was curious to see if I would do better than the actual coach. From the opening offensive game, with its liberal use of real names in precise offensive roles (each team’s defense is even more anonymous than in real football), I was hooked. The Cardinals lost a game on bond 7-3 that seemed awfully realistic from a viewer’s point of view. Since I was so pleased with the simulation, I couldn’t wait to bring out my underdogs 1983 Detroit Lions and take on “Team USA” the 1983 Dallas Cowboys.

Cowboys fans will be contesting the Lions’ 26-10 victory, but home-field advantage coupled with excellent training (modesty prevents me from stating the obvious) sums it up. Who were the race leaders? You guessed them. Billy Sims led the Lions with 79 yards on 23 carries and Tony Dorsett led the Cowboys with 72 yards on 16 carries. Up to this point, I had tried ’83 varsity teams and ’83 NFL teams, but 3 IN 1 also offers USFL options. I saw the Express pull off a 30-24 victory over the Gunslinger. True to reality, the only explosive thing about the Express offense was the kicker’s toe. The game had allowed me to participate in stat-oriented sports simulations for three different levels of play, but the best was yet to come.

The game also makes available great NFL and college teams from past seasons. Would the 1969 USC Trojans defeat the 1969 Penn State Nittany Lions at a neutral site? My replay said they would, 24-7. Two Clarence Davis touchdowns paved the way. Would Namath’s 1968 New York Jets have been able to defeat Staubach’s glorious 1975 Dallas Cowboys in a fictional Super Bowl? My final score of Jets 31 – Cowboys 27 is far from conclusive. However, the gameplay as a whole provides the same kind of thrill and excitement that I get from SSI’s COMPUTER BASEBALL.

If these factors are significant to you, you’ll want to buy CQ instead of 3-IN-1. In 3-IN-1, familiar team stats always seem to be in the right ballpark, however, second-row quarterbacks seem to have a better completion record than starters in the games I’ve played. It would be interesting to know Heffner’s calculations. The worst comparison between CQ and 3 IN 1 is the use or not use of graphics. The statistical summaries at halftime and the conclusion of the game seem much more stimulating since they reflect individual efforts.

The second negative factor has to do with the computer as an opponent. CQ uses a system that allows the computer to learn from you and improve its level of play. Sure, 3 IN 1 learns how to blitz every move, but it doesn’t keep a data file about your playstyle like CQ. I find both games interesting and worth having. I feel like 3 IN 1 is more fun to sit down and play a game in isolation, but CQ is a better simulation in terms of developing one’s distinctive team and developing a “league”.

I find the stats in 3 IN 1 to be superior to the stat summaries in CQ, but I find the computer’s ability to improve as an opponent in CQ to be superior to 3 IN 1. 3 IN’s 14 offenses and 6 defenses certainly pales before all 36 offenses and 24 CQ defenses (in the pro version), but the simple flow of the 3 IN format speeds up the game. “Jones finds Dickerson in the end zone and his touchdown USC!” With CQ and 3 IN 1 on my shelf, I never have to worry about tube matches.