Atari 2600 ratings on Videogamecritic

[JB]

Now Homerun - THAT sucks!!

 

I like that one.

What other baseball game lets you throw a pitch that changes speed and direction 5 times before it gets to the plate, and one last time right as it crosses the plate?

I swear, if they had a stripped-down version with an AI batter and you controlling the pitcher and called it "batting Cage" I'd pick it up in a heartbeat.

[ApolloBoy]

I never used the words SOB...

 

Yes you did, don't lie.

 

I really don't appreciate you SOBs talking behind my back like this.

 

See?

[+Random Terrain]

Let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement.

I have a suggestion. You could reevaluate and re-grade E.T. from an angle other than the pure ignorant newbie position. Here's what I said in a recent thread about E.T.:

 

If you play the game more than 3 times, even a total klutz can learn to zip around the wells without falling in. If you happen to fall into a well by mistake or on purpose, you can press the button and catch yourself before you barely fall in. You will be floating near the top of the screen and can either float out or land and get an object or fart around with the flower. It's simple.

 

Although the wells are a shock when you first play the game, you just learn to accept them and use them to your advantage, like escaping from one of those mean dudes who want to slice you open and play with your guts. I'd rather have items hidden behind trees or something like that, but as it is, the game still has replayability, great graphics and sound (for the time it was made), and is better than most of the crap made for the Atari 2600. You can play that game over and over again and never get sick of it because not only are the items in different places, but the zones are too. As long as we can keep from falling into the wells like we belong in the special olympics and use the trick to catch ourselves if we do fall in, it's a great game.

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

You could reevaluate and re-grade E.T. from an angle other than the pure ignorant newbie position.

 

Ah, that reminds me of the school days some 25 years ago, when we were 8 or 9 years old and everyone had this "The game I got for X-Mas is holier than yours" attitide, defending even the worst crap to death...

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Ah, that reminds me of the school days some 25 years ago, when we were 8 or 9 years old and everyone had this "The game I got for X-Mas is holier than yours" attitide, defending even the worst crap to death...

But IMO E.T. isn't that bad. IMO F should reserved for absolute crap games, E.T. is at least playable (when you understand how to evade the pits) and also technically quite impressive (C-).

[+Random Terrain]

Hi there!

 

You could reevaluate and re-grade E.T. from an angle other than the pure ignorant newbie position.

 

Ah, that reminds me of the school days some 25 years ago, when we were 8 or 9 years old and everyone had this "The game I got for X-Mas is holier than yours" attitide, defending even the worst crap to death...

 

Except I was 17 when I got E.T. and never had those discussions. E.T. is just a good, replayable game if you know how to deal with the wells, and anyone who plays it more than a few times can easily learn to do that. I am clumsy and even I can zip around the wells at high speed without falling in. As I said, it's also easy to catch yourself in mid-air if you do fall in. Although I like Adventure, I'd rather play E.T. than Adventure any day.

[NE146]

I've always said that E.T. is far from a bad 2600 game. It aint the best, but definitely FAR from the worst. HSW was no rookie vcs programmer and the attempt to make a good game shows through with any honest attempt at actually playing and completing the game. It grows on you, which can't be said of a lot of VCS games. No way it deserves an F... That's Skeet Shoot territory.I say C+

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

I'd rather play E.T. than Adventure any day.

 

Me too, not because E.T. is underrated, but because Adventure is overrated

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[+Random Terrain]

But IMO E.T. isn't that bad. IMO F should reserved for absolute crap games, E.T. is at least playable (when you understand how to evade the pits) and also technically quite impressive (C-).

Now I could live with that grade, although I would give it a higher one. Here are some examples of what grades I might give to various games:

 

Solar Fox (A)

E.T. (A-)

Starmaster (B)

Star Trek: Strategic Operations Simulator (B)

Lock 'N' Chase (B-)

Yars' Revenge (B-)

Demon Attack (C+)

Ms. Pac-Man (C+)

Adventure ©

Marauder (C-)

Mountain King (C-)

Pac-Man (D)

Tax Avoiders (D-)

Swordquest series (D-)

Sorcerer (F)

Fire Fly (F)

Airlock (F)

[highinfidelity]

Good! Good chance to open up a new website with reviews! We'll see if people would agree more with your judice than VGC's.

 

IMHO, VGC is a great website with a HUGE lot of interesting material. It must have taken forever to work on all that stuff, great work! Generally speaking, I find that the ratings are well given, and even when I think they aren't, I can read almost any time in the text the reasons why the reviewer has been so much impressed / depressed by a game.

 

Moreover, in many cases, when I read a good review of what I consider a big stinker, I tend to wonder if I am missing something like strategy or tricks or whatsoever, rather than think that the rewiewer didn't get it. Thus, I document myself, I ask, I go back at the game and finally find that I was missing something FOR REAL, generally. That's why I consider VGC reviews pages written by an advanced player, almost a reference, not few lines drop down in a rainy afternoon by an Atari newbier.

 

And once again it's AMAZING how lazy we are in dropping few lines to thank a webmaster whose FREE site we've found great, useful and interesting, and how reactively we pick up the pen to yell at someone who dared to undervalue our favourite game (which in our soul we know that sucks, but you know, that's OUR favorite...). That's the worst part in running a website: you don't even know if anyone likes it, but you receive a wide feedback by people who don't agree with you. Very encouraging.

 

As for me, videogamecritic, MANY THANKS FOR YOUR WORK!

[incog]

Solaris A+

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Good!   Good chance to open up a new website with reviews!   We'll see if people would agree more with your judice than VGC's.

Waiting...

 

IMHO, VGC is a great website with a HUGE lot of interesting material.  It must have taken forever to work on all that stuff,  great work!   Generally speaking, I find that the ratings are well given,  and even when I think they aren't,  I can read almost any time in the text the reasons why the reviewer has been so much impressed / depressed by a game.

 

Moreover,  in many cases,  when I read a good review of what I consider a big stinker,  I tend to wonder if I am missing something like strategy or tricks or whatsoever,  rather than think that the rewiewer didn't get it.   Thus,  I document myself,  I ask,  I go back at the game and finally find that I was missing something FOR REAL,  generally.   That's why I consider VGC reviews pages written by an advanced player,  almost a reference,  not few lines drop down in a rainy afternoon by an Atari newbier.

 

And once again it's AMAZING how lazy we are in dropping few lines to thank a webmaster whose FREE site we've found great, useful and interesting,  and how reactively we pick up the pen to yell at someone who dared to undervalue our favourite game (which in our soul we know that sucks, but you know, that's OUR favorite...).   That's the worst part in running a website: you don't even know if anyone likes it, but you receive a wide feedback by people who don't agree with you.   Very encouraging.

 

As for me,  videogamecritic, MANY THANKS FOR YOUR WORK!  

I couldn't agree more!

[+Random Terrain]

Good!   Good chance to open up a new website with reviews!   We'll see if people would agree more with your judice than VGC's.

I already have a web site, I don't need a new one. You don't need to create an entire web site to compare what you think with what some random doofus out there thinks about a game. I mean that in general, so don't piss your pants and think I'm calling dmrozek a doofus. I actually link to his site on this page of my web site:

 

http://www.randomterrain.com/a2m/a2m7links.html

 

That's why I consider VGC reviews pages written by an advanced player,  almost a reference,  not few lines drop down in a rainy afternoon by an Atari newbier.

Well, it may have taken a long time to create his reviews, and some or most of them may seem to be written by an advanced player, but the one about E.T. could have been written by a little kid with ADD who played it once or twice and gave up.

 

And once again it's AMAZING how lazy we are in dropping few lines to thank a webmaster whose FREE site we've found great, useful and interesting,  and how reactively we pick up the pen to yell at someone who dared to undervalue our favourite game (which in our soul we know that sucks, but you know, that's OUR favorite...).   That's the worst part in running a website: you don't even know if anyone likes it, but you receive a wide feedback by people who don't agree with you.   Very encouraging.

Boo freakin' hoo. I have a free site and I get negative e-mails all of the time and very few positive ones. Any web site that posts opinions about anything will get that. It's one of the hazards of having a web site. If you post any opinion on your site, you better be ready to accept any feedback you get. You also have no control over whether people talk about your opinions in forums around the world. A negative e-mail is actually more helpful than a positive one. It can help you define your position even more or show you that you were wrong (or partially wrong) so that you can adjust.

 

The reason why it's important for sites such as the one owned by dmrozek to go easier on E.T. is that there are millions of seemingly mindless dorks out there who jump on the "I hate E.T." bandwagon without even giving it a chance. They play it once or twice and then proclaim it the worst game ever made. That's an ignorant, newbie attitude. An "advanced player" wouldn't think E.T. was so bad, in fact, an "advanced player" would think it was pretty good. In the areas of replayability, graphics, sound, and just plain fun finding the pieces and zones every time, it's outstanding when compared to most other games. Compare E.T. to games made now for any console and although the graphics have improved, most games are one use only. Each new game that comes out is like toilet paper, use it once and then flush it. E.T. used Controlled Randomness in a great way which makes it fun throughout the ages. Play it over and over again and each time you basically have a new game.

 

As for me,  videogamecritic, MANY THANKS FOR YOUR WORK!  

I'm sure you meant that and weren't just trying to be different for the sake of being different in a thread where most of the comments seem to be "negative."

 

Notice that dmrozek said, "Let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement." So, we are now doing that. It's nice that he has a pretty good site where people can go to squeeze out as much truthful information as they can about how a game might really play from his reviews. Sure, frames and black backgrounds suck, but it's still a pretty good site. His site is good to refresh your memory or to check out a game you never played, but it's not going to cure cancer. Although it will not cure cancer, it and other sites can damage the memory of a game since most people are sheep and want to jump on whatever bandwagon seems popular. There are various little rinky-dink sites out there with ignorant, newbie-like, anti-E.T. comments and that can add up when it comes to affecting the opinions of the sheep who just want to know what they should think about things. "What opinion will make me part of the Atari 2600 in-crowd? I know! I'll jump on the 'E.T. sucks' bandwagon! That will get me a lot of instant Atari 2600 friends since they all seem to agree that E.T. stinks like a dead carp on a hot sidewalk."

 

It's important for sites like dmrozek's to be a little more responsible about handing out Fs and making far from advanced comments about various games. It's unfair to the "sheep" to disparage games that are not as horrible as they might seem at first glance. Review sites have more of a responsibility to be "fair and balanced" and have comments worthy of an "advanced player." He has a right to say anything he wants, but he also has a responsibility to his visitors, whether his site is free or not.

 

My opinion has been swayed at least a few times by so-called negative feedback, but that happens to be the most positive of all in the long run. A pat on the back is nice, but you'll get more from a slap in the face. A pat on the back doesn't help you to improve, it doesn't help you to advance to another level. So-called negative feedback is often love in disguise.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Well, it may have taken a long time to create his reviews, and some or most of them may seem to be written by an advanced player, but the one about E.T. could have been written by a little kid with ADD who played it once or twice and gave up.

 

The reason why it's important for sites such as the one owned by dmrozek to go easier on E.T. is that there are millions of seemingly mindless dorks out there who jump on the "I hate E.T." bandwagon without even giving it a chance. They play it once or twice and then proclaim it the worst game ever made. That's an ignorant, newbie attitude. An "advanced player" wouldn't think E.T. was so bad, in fact, an "advanced player" would think it was pretty good. In the areas of replayability, graphics, sound, and just plain fun finding the pieces and zones every time, it's outstanding when compared to most other games. Compare E.T. to games made now for any console and although the graphics have improved, most games are one use only. Each new game that comes out is like toilet paper, use it once and then flush it. E.T. used Controlled Randomness in a great way which makes it fun throughout the ages. Play it over and over again and each time you basically have a new game.

 

It's important for sites like dmrozek's to be a little more responsible about handing out Fs and making far from advanced comments about various games. It's unfair to the "sheep" to disparage games that are not as horrible as they might seem at first glance. Review sites have more of a responsibility to be "fair and balanced" and have comments worthy of an "advanced player." He has a right to say anything he wants, but he also has a responsibility to his visitors, whether his site is free or not.

Ok, now I know why you like the game (IMO it's not an F too). But I don't agree that Dave has to be always objective. If he doesn't like a game and explains why, then we should accept that and not assume that he has any different reasons. And trying to talk down ("could have been written by a little kid with ADD who played it once or twice and gave up", "An "advanced player" wouldn't think E.T. was so bad", "be a little more responsible", "making far from advanced comments"...) his review is highly unadequate and partially insulting.

 

Personally I hate those extremely well balance websites, where everything is taken 100% "objective" (whatever that means). Hey, this is our (and Dave's) hobby! We are no robots, we have opinions, we are subjective. The whole website is made by a single person who invests a lot of time and effort into his hobby. The reviews may not always be 100% perfect and polished, but they give you a good impression how Dave feels about the games.

 

And sometimes I really love to read those comments about F rated games.

 

Sure, frames and black backgrounds suck

IMO is gives the webiste a nice retro style. Sure, black on white is better for the eyes for long texts, but for a quick look at reviews it IMO doesn't matter that much. And with the black background the screenshots contrast much better.

 

If you don't like the color schema, create your own and use Opera.

[highinfidelity]

Yes, that post was not very constructive. Don't you think that it's much less energy-demanding to live in peace with people who dislike ET or not to treat like kids those who don't join your no-black-background&frames crusade?

 

After all, THEY could say that YOU just jumped on the 'E.T. is cool' revisionist bandwagon, or that it's very snob to say that you like whatever the other ones don't. Or better: that you "know how to appreciate" things that "ordinary" people dislike.

 

If you prefer to "slap faces" with your messages and you think that everyone should be grateful for that, well, go on! I'll be more friendly in the meanwhile, if you don't mind. But can I at least suggest you to be less pretentious when you correct someone else's... errors? And to use as less sarchastic "" as possible? Sentences like <> do not help to build a dialogue very much, IMHO.

[Jess Ragan]

Geez, let the guy have his opinion. There's nothing that bugs me more than lame-os sending me hate mail because my opinions on The Gameroom Blitz doesn't match theirs exactly.

 

JR

[black dog]

Somehow these types of threads always end up on the topic of ET. I don't know why alot of people hate ET I guess like someone mentioned above there were high expectations. Personally, I like ET, and have defended it many times before in these threads. I think it is better than the majority of 2600 games but thats just my opinion. Like Jess R said its just this guys opinion, doesn't make it wrong or right. He also ripped Threshold which is one of my favs, but I will hold off on sending any hate mail. Now if he had graded SSSnake an A I would have to write him and tell him to increase the dosage of his medication,but I'm sure that there is atleast one person who likes SSSnake even if they are not willing to admit it. Anyway its just about personal preferences, nothing to get fired up about. And this my friends is probably my longest post ever on AA, so I must now go lie down and take a nap, I'm exhausted.

[sku_u]

The reviews on the VGC website are the opinions of the reviewer. It would be very scary if we all agreed with the views of the reviewer 100% of the time.

 

BTW, I think Skeet Shoot should be an A+.

[Cootster]

I mean, personally, I didn't even have a 2600 until mid-crash, and never got E. T. until like '90, and that was NIB, so I had a manual . . . Which I think discusses the pit factor and how to avoid them . . . And I've always liked it . . . Basically, it's an RPG, and like all RPGs, there is a pointless slog to the goal (instead of rat-killing, it's falling in pits) . . .

 

But, it's different strokes for different folks . . . I don't particularly care for some games everyone seems to like (like Yar's and Seaquest, to name 2) , , ,

[ApolloBoy]

Maybe I should help PaulEMoz out and be a reviewer for his site...

[PaulEMoz]

Maybe I should help PaulEMoz out and be a reviewer for his site...

 

Tell you what, if you'd like to, I'd have you, no question. I've 'lost' a few reviewers of late....

[+Random Terrain]

Yes, that post was not very constructive. Don't you think that it's much less energy-demanding to live in peace with people who dislike ET. . .

If you have a web site where you say a certain game sucks, anyone visiting your site has a right to disagree. Do you want a bland world where there is never a clash of ideas? Discord and revolt bring about change. People standing in a circle holding hands might be fun for a while, but nothing much ever gets done.

 

I'm not talking about getting hate mail like I get from insane Michael Jackson fans where they say, "you bleeping, goat raping son of a diseased whore. . ." I'm talking about just saying, "yo dude, your comment about how level three in the game 'Zipsnork Ziffle' is 'stupid and impossible for anyone to get though' is all wrong. It's actually a great level if you remember to grab the Golden Grugnub then touch the Nubbin of Nacknoosh before you jump onto the. . ."

 

My post was very constructive. I pointed out that his review was written as if a little kid with ADD did it. I did not say he was a little kid with ADD. His review was superficial and very unfair, especially since you consider him to be an "advanced player." A review doesn't absolutely have to be "fair and balanced" (don't sue me FOX), but it should at least show that the reviewer actually played the game for more than 10 minutes.

 

 

After all, THEY could say that YOU just jumped on the 'E.T. is cool' revisionist bandwagon. . .

I liked E.T. back when it was new (except for the first few times I played it). Just like most everyone else, I wondered what in the hell all of these wells were here for since they weren't in the movie and I also wondered what in the hell all of that "zone" business was about, but I soon got over the shock and discovered that the game is actually pretty fun and infinitely replayable.

 

. . . or that it's very snob[by?] to say that you like whatever the other ones don't. Or better: that you "know how to appreciate" things that "ordinary" people dislike.

In case you haven't discovered this fact on your own yet, I'll help you out. The average person is a sheep. They even blatantly call people that in the Bible and it's not just a cute little metaphor. Most people are sheep. You don't have to be a genius to understand that fact. There are people who are above average who manage to have an opinion not fed to them by religion, parents, friends, teachers, or professors, but they are not in the majority. Snobby or not, it's a fact. There are also people who are more talented than most "normal" people. They seem to be on a higher plain of existence, whether it's singing, dancing, sports, game playing, math, or whatever, they tower above us. You may not like it, but all men are not created equal.

 

Now back to what we were talking about. Remember that in your other post you said:

If you prefer to "slap faces" with your messages and you think that everyone should be grateful for that, well, go on! I'll be more friendly in the meanwhile, if you don't mind. But can I at least suggest you to be less pretentious when you correct someone else's... errors? And to use as less sarchastic "" as possible? Sentences like <<an "advanced player" wouldn't think E.T. was so bad, in fact, an "advanced player" would think it was pretty good>> do not help to build a dialogue very much, IMHO.

I put "advanced player" in quotes because I was quoting you. An "advanced player" would know more about E.T. because advanced players go beyond the surface.

 

Remember that you also said, "Don't you think that it's much less energy-demanding to live in peace with people who dislike ET. . ." Well, you seem to want to live in peace and harmony and let everyone say what they want, except me. If dmrozek can say that E.T. sucks because he hasn't gone past the welcome mat, I should be able to say that his review sucks because it's a superficial review without you telling me what I should or shouldn't say. You are going against your own advice. How about we all just post our opinions and live in peace at the same time? Sounds much better to me than your bland version where no one ever gets any usable feedback. It reminds me of this quote from the book, "AVOID THE AGING TRAP" by Muriel Oberleder:

 

Why Old and Young Need Feedback

The principle is the same for people of all ages. Anyone who is put on the spot may become irrational in arguments. This is usually corrected by feedback: someone gives you another point of view, and subsequent experience brings you back to normal reasoning.

 

But feedback is often denied to the elderly, because people don't want to bother giving them another point of view, or they may not want to upset them and so will give false feedback. "Ah, well, I'll just play along." Or they may simply be respectful: after all, we are taught not to contradict our elders. But this hardly helps an older person to get back on track!

 

Of course feedback is a two-way business. Nobody relishes being wrong, and many older people, because they are so vulnerable, resent it. In fact, some may choose to bow out altogether (this is called disengagement), rather than remain involved--and subject to criticism.

 

The problem is, without normal give-and-take a person lives in a vacuum. That is why an old person seems to lose the ability to learn.

 

If you care about others, you will not humor them, you will bounce ideas off of them, you will give them critical feedback. And if you don't want brain rot yourself, you will jump in with both feet and splash around joyously in all kinds of feedback. All of my comments anywhere, about anything, to anyone, no matter how sarcastic and snippy they may sound sometimes, is another form of love. I care enough to say something. I'm not trying to force people to believe what I do, I just want to make sure that my point of view is considered. You sling your contribution against the wall and see how much of it sticks.

[sku_u]

 

My post was very constructive. I pointed out that his review was written as if a little kid with ADD did it. I did not say he was a little kid with ADD. His review was superficial and very unfair, especially since you consider him to be an "advanced player." A review doesn't absolutely have to be "fair and balanced" (don't sue me FOX), but it should at least show that the reviewer actually played the game for more than 10 minutes.

 

I have no problem with your take on ET, but insulting the intelligence of an intelligent reviewer who disagrees with your take on ET with comments like the above is just wrong.

[+Random Terrain]

If he doesn't like a game and explains why, then we should accept that and not assume that he has any different reasons.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say he had any certain kind of "reason" for creating that review. All I said was it was written from the point of view of a pure newbie with Attention Deficit Disorder and did not reflect something highinfidelity's "advanced player" would write because advanced players are "advanced." They don't usually stop at the welcome mat, but go beyond the superficial first impression and just play the game.

 

If you need examples from his review, here you go:

 

I have no problem with your take on ET, but insulting the intelligence of an intelligent reviewer who disagrees with your take on ET with comments like the above is just wrong.

Me: "Hi, sku_u, I heard you slept like a baby last night."

 

sku_u: "I'm not a baby! how dare you insult me like that!"

 

 

I did not insult his intelligence. I simply said his "You can barely move without accidentally keep falling into one of these annoying things!" type comments about E.T. (and E.T. only) were like what a little kid with ADD would say about the game. For the last freakin' time, I did not say he had ADD, or was a little kid, or raped a goat, or eats armpit hair or anything else like that.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I did not insult his intelligence. I simply said his "You can barely move without accidentally keep falling into one of these annoying things!" type comments about E.T. (and E.T. only) were like what a little kid with ADD would say about the game. For the last freakin' time, I did not say he had ADD, or was a little kid, or raped a goat, or eats armpit hair or anything else like that.

There is no difference between saying someone is stupid or directly comparing him with someone stupid. Both are equaly insulting and any further discussion doesn't make sense until you realize that.

 

BTW: You now act like somebody who cannot accept that there are different opinions, like someone who talks down people who have different opinions, like someone who is extremely narrow minded, like someone who behaves really stupid by calling others doing stupid just because they doin't share his point of view, like someone who's ego is too boosted to accept that his words may not have been well choosen, like someone who doesn't know the word 'sorry'.

 

I am not saying you are, just comparing. Got me?