+Random Terrain Posted June 12, 2001 Author Share Posted June 12, 2001 -^Cro§Bow^- : I just wanted to politely correct something you said. You said, "...Pac-Man while being a rush job for sure...is still better than what Atari had done previously to that. Ms. Pac-Man showed us what could have been...but was done several years later." In the United States, Pac-Man was released in April of 1982, and Ms. Pac-Man was released in February of 1983. That's less than a year apart, not "several years later." I thought you might like to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted June 12, 2001 Author Share Posted June 12, 2001 -^Cro§Bow^- : I see that we posted at the same time. Did you get a chance to read my post above yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 I'm gonna be frank here. people like me and crazy mon have tried E.T out for 2600 and it is without a doubt the stupidist most pathetic and worthless piece of congeald monkey vomit ever to grace this earth! maybe if they had spend more than 5 weeks making the piece of crud than it could have been better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted June 13, 2001 Author Share Posted June 13, 2001 Soda Bob: It's OK if it's too hard for you guys to play. Some people have certain skills and others don't. That's life. We don't think less of you if you guys can't figure out how to play E.T. That's why atari made games like Big Bird's Egg Catch and Cookie Monster Munch so that people like you would have something to play at your skill level. There's nothing for you guys to be ashamed of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khryssun Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 soda bob, quote: it is without a doubt the stupidist most pathetic and worthless piece of congeald monkey vomit ever to grace this earth! Why so much hatred ? keep cool man There's so many games which are REALLY bad. E.T. is a GOOD game with interesting game's mechanisms. So, please stop loosing your time to find insults about this game, grab your joystick and try to play it seriously (read the manual first it's important for this game). Have fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inky Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 I think the whole reason people thought ET sucked is because it was one of the few 2600 games you had to read the manual for. Most of us just pop-n-play and do relatively well with most games. I remember reading a magaxzine review of ET in which the reviewer gave it a low score because he was following the arrows and getting nowhere... Heh.. Inky -- Trying for 20 posts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeknPoke Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 E.T. was a product of its day, a good game, not great, but in its day, it really was good to me. The film was massive and the game grew on me as I played it properly (That is, how to get out of those pits) Today, not many gamers like it, which is odd as I find it a refreshing idea, played true to the subject matter it tries to emulate, unlike the manu shoot-em-ups around at the time. I also like the programmers other games, Raiders and Adventure too...And im sure most of you do! ET needs to be played in its day, rather than now to see why it worked! Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khryssun Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 quote: ET needs to be played in its day, rather than now to see why it worked! Everyday is a good day for me to play ET. LOL It's a so challenging game. It's hard to complete in the highest difficult level... I love the thrill of the last time when waiting for the spaceship. That game requires memory, skill, timing and strategy. I love that mix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamemaster_ca_2003 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>ET needs to be played in its day, rather than now to see why it worked! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Everyday is a good day for me to play ET. LOL It's a so challenging game. It's hard to complete in the highest difficult level... I love the thrill of the last time when waiting for the spaceship. That game requires memory, skill, timing and strategy. I love that mix. You mean like Activision's Space Shuttle they say it is the only game you need to read the manual to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Inky -- Trying for 20 posts... Wow, Inky, you've come a long way since trying for 20 posts. As for E.T., I enjoyed the game, as did most of my friends who had the game. It was actually a fairly complex adventure game for its time. I didn't recall anyone in my circle of friends "back in the day" saying that they disliked the game, or wanted to take it back to the store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 If this thread proves anything, it's that when you're a kid, your standards are much, much lower. A good adventure game shouldn't require razor-sharp reflexes to deal with basic movement through the game world. Heck, it shouldn't involve throwing yourself into pits either. And Tempest, your statement that "the Atari 400/800 just didn't do voice synthesis", is ludicrous. There are many examples of crystal-clear speech on the 400/800. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bergbros Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 I do not LOVE E.T., but considering the incredibly impossible deadlines imposed in getting the game out, E.T. is definitely not a horrible game and is not the contemptible money grab as say, the Swordquest series, Pac Man and Defender. I thought the game was challenging and despite the pits, the gameplay was basically sound. If they got rid of the pits and possibly made more screens, the game would have been better. Hide the pieces behaind trees and houses for example but keep the zones. Maybe make it more like Raiders. E.T. definitely was the beginning of the end for Atari but the game itself was not the reason. It was the hubris of the company whose executives actually said they could sell carts if they loaded them with horseshit, a lack of innovation, incredible missed opportunities (Famicon) and you got RIP Atari. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted July 28, 2003 Author Share Posted July 28, 2003 ZylonBane, I wouldn't consider myself to be that great of a game player. I'm fairly clumsy and it took me a while to even understand the concept of "zones," but even I learned before too long to "run" in high-speed bursts around the wells. As I said, when checking wells, I never just dropped in, I caught myself near the top of the screen. It doesn't take razor-sharp reflexes because if I could do it, almost anyone could (if they took at least a few seconds to figure it out). I agree with most people that the wells are stupid, but if you get past that and accept them, it can be a fun adventure or "treasure hunt" or whatever you want to call it. Playing on the hardest level can be even more fun because you never know when someone will grab you or take something away (since they're so quick). It's "scarier" than Haunted House and similar to the feeling you get when you play Adventure. E. T. could have been a much better game, but by having the zones and items in random places, at least it's replayable (which increases the fun factor), and for kids right above the poverty line, replayability was a great thing back then, even if the game wasn't perfect. I wanted better gameplay and better graphics, but you took what you could get, either because of price or because some games with better graphics and gameplay weren't replayable, so you were wasting your money if you bought a so-called "better" game since you would be stuck with that game for a long time before you got another one. Sometimes your standards have to adjust to your wallet, but you'll still find a few games that you actually like along the way. There are other Atari 2600 games I may like a little more than E. T., but E. T. is still on the list of games that I love, along with Yars' Revenge, Adventure, Stargate, Starmaster, Othello, Video Chess, Subterranea, Laser Gates, Ms. Pac-Man, Lock 'N' Chase, Midnight Magic, Solar Fox, Star Trek: Strategic Operations Simulator, Enduro, Mountain King, Marauder, and a few others I can't remember right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgler Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Listen. E.T. sucks. It just sucks and that's it. Please stop pretending that this game is good, 'cause it sucks. That does not mean however, that I don't like it and enjoy it semi-frequently, but come on, it was a rush job and a poor one too. I must reitereate before everyone jumps on this - I like ET, but only in a so bad it's good kitchy sort of way. Atari needed a cash injection and took the easy way out to try to get it. E.T. sucks ass and that's why it's good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 What's with this current fad of digging up 2-year old threads? Is this some kind of cult thing? Your father and I know about the crack...just say no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted July 30, 2003 Author Share Posted July 30, 2003 Figgler, there are many games that suck pure liquid dog crap, but although E.T. was a rush job, it has better graphics than many games, it has great sound effects, the gameplay is similar to Adventure which most people agree is a great game, and E.T. can be more fun than Adventure (especially if you don't like mazes that much and you like finding the zones). If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to say that one of the following three games sucked, Adventure, Superman, or E.T., I would have to say "Superman." I don't hate Superman, but if you're going to say an adventure-type game sucks, Superman has to be at the top of the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwiliteZoner Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 If you really think about it. E.T. was not the worst game for the 2600. It's not the best either, but it really does get a bad wrap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgler Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to say that one of the following three games sucked, Adventure, Superman, or E.T., I would have to say "Superman." I don't hate Superman, but if you're going to say an adventure-type game sucks, Superman has to be at the top of the list. So true! Superman blows, but I love Supes too. What a great bad game. A Superman meets ET game would be the suckiest game that ever sucked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 i still stand by et as a good game that has really gotten the shaft over the years. With ET & Raiders atari found out the hard way that rpgs just didnt sell that well back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Yah, RPGs didn't sell well at the height of the Dungeons and Dragons craze. The truth is that the systems of the day didn't have enough storage to provide a compelling RPG-style experience. Adventure and Haunted House were about as good as the stock 2600 could give within an easily playable framework. Anything more ambitious (Raiders, Riddle of the Sphinx, Swordquest) slammed up against the limitations of the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Yah, RPGs didn't sell well at the height of the Dungeons and Dragons craze. you are quite correct, they did not. As you correctly state, electronic rpgs were very embryonic at the time, and obviously not a genre that tapped into the mass market of the current 'twitch' games of the 2600 era. It wasn't until the era of the playstation that electronic rpgs on console crawled out of their nitch status. Games like E.T. and Raiders didn't even really break the ice so much as they broke their noses hitting it. I don't really think they slammed up against any limitations beyond the limits of the games programmers and the time constraints (and considering this, i think they did well, especially in Raiders case,). look at dragon stomper, survival island or pauls modern home star rpg... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trusty Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 I thought ET was GREAT! As was Raiders Of The Lost Ark and alot of the other games that have been given the moniker of "Official BAD Game". Games of yesteryear are different that games of today. There weren't THAT many as there are today. So there really wasn't a bad game perse. It was just a matter of taste. There were ALL fun! (except Strawberry Shortcake...) Now THERES a bad game!! LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 look at dragon stomper, survival island or pauls modern home star rpg... Right. Two games that require a third-party add-on to run, and one that will require a ROM size unheard of in the 2600's heyday. Thanks for supporting my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApolloBoy Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 quote: ET needs to be played in its day, rather than now to see why it worked! Everyday is a good day for me to play ET. LOL It's a so challenging game. It's hard to complete in the highest difficult level... I love the thrill of the last time when waiting for the spaceship. That game requires memory, skill, timing and strategy. I love that mix. You mean like Activision's Space Shuttle they say it is the only game you need to read the manual to play. Gamemaster, please learn how to use the quote feature. I can't tell who's saying what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doron Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 I can't understand why people bash pacman! as kids I don't remember anyone complaining or even noticing the difference to the arcade. For us it was pacman as it should be. Remember those desktop or handheld sort of versions? Now they were problematic. Flicker?! isn't that what it should be like? However, chasing food all the time, no fire buttom, it really wasn't my type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.