General and Gaming => Classic Video Games => Topic started by: instantreplay on November 30, 2014, 11:13:13 pm
Title: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: instantreplay on November 30, 2014, 11:13:13 pm
So I've watched a lot of old Atari 2600 walkthroughs and I recently watched someone play E.T. and I'm having a hard time understanding why its considered the worst game of all time. I'm not saying the game is good, but there are so many Atari games that were just as bad if not worse, but everyone loved them. The first Indiana Jones game is absolutely baffling to me. People call it a puzzle game but that's like calling lego kit without instructions a puzzle.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: burningdoom on November 30, 2014, 11:43:35 pm
It's the holes. Those damn holes. If they weren't there, it might be enjoyable enough to be playable.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: dashv on December 01, 2014, 12:19:14 am
I beat the game when I was a kid so it is far from unplayable.
I agree that the hate this game receives for being complex and unforgiving is unfair when games just as bad or worse (Raiders of the Lost Ark for example) are held up as forgotten gems of a bygone era.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: exonerator on December 01, 2014, 01:03:22 am
No. It had flaws, but it was damned ambitious as an Atari game, and certainly more playable than the majority of Atari games... would you play Football on Atari? I don't think so. It's just a game you need the manual for, and it's safe to assume that people on the hate bandwagon in recent years have forgotten that not all Atari games are easy pick up and play games.
I actually really like E.T. on Atari.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: bikingjahuty on December 01, 2014, 01:12:13 am
Honestly no. I've played games that are waayyy worse, both on the 2600 all the way up to the PS3. It's definitely not a good game, but a lot of the reason it has been awarded so much of the infamy it carries is because of history revisionists online who like to pin the video game crash on it, and make it sound like it almost caused WW3. Alone, it's influence on the crash was minimal compared to a variety of other, much larger things going on around 1983.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: kr2nist on December 01, 2014, 01:49:31 am
No. It had flaws, but it was damned ambitious as an Atari game, and certainly more playable than the majority of Atari games... would you play Football on Atari? I don't think so. It's just a game you need the manual for, and it's safe to assume that people on the hate bandwagon in recent years have forgotten that not all Atari games are easy pick up and play games.
E.T. wasn't the best Atari game, but it certainly wasn't the absolute worst either. Sure the game was a pain in the butt and was definitely unforgiving, but I remember the relief I felt when I had beaten it when I was a kid.
And ugh....did you have to mention Football? (...I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...lol!) If I wanted decent gridiron action, I turned to RealSports Football instead. ;)
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: badATchaos on December 01, 2014, 07:47:11 am
Doesn't help no one has the manual anymore.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: kr2nist on December 01, 2014, 09:37:18 am
You could always check the Marketplace here, if you haven't checked it already...
And there's also Ebay, which I've listed below a couple of links to auctions and sales for that manual:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Atari-2600-E-T-Extra-Terrestrial-Game-Program-Instructions-Manual-Only-/301419050933?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item462df9b7b5 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Atari-2600-E-T-Extra-Terrestrial-Game-Program-Instructions-Manual-Only-/301419050933?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item462df9b7b5) (...bid right now is at $3.25...)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/E-T-The-Extra-Terrestrial-Atari-2600-1982-Game-Instruction-Manual-/121503526218?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item1c4a2cad4a (http://www.ebay.com/itm/E-T-The-Extra-Terrestrial-Atari-2600-1982-Game-Instruction-Manual-/121503526218?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item1c4a2cad4a) (...comes with game & manual for $10.25...)
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: davifus on December 01, 2014, 12:00:54 pm
You could always check the Marketplace here, if you haven't checked it already... And there's also Ebay, which I've listed below a couple of links to auctions and sales for that manual
I was speaking generally. People who hop in for the first time might remain clueless on what to do. Having the manual actually helps explain how to play the game.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: burningdoom on December 01, 2014, 07:31:45 pm
I have to wonder after reading some of these replies: How many of you actually played, no struggled through this game as a kid? Because I did. I'm telling you, it really is that bad. I mean seriously: THOSE FUCKING HOLES!!!
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: turf on December 01, 2014, 07:55:27 pm
I had it as a kid. I didn't know it was a bad game. I never figured it out. I just wandered until I fell in those effin holes.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: pacpix on December 01, 2014, 09:29:37 pm
I have to wonder after reading some of these replies: How many of you actually played, no struggled through this game as a kid? Because I did. I'm telling you, it really is that bad. I mean seriously: THOSE FUCKING HOLES!!!
Random Terrain, one of the biggest defenders of E.T. over at AtariAge made a nice video tutorial on escaping the pits.
Also has a few pages dedicated to the game. Still do not care for it much myself, but not a terrible game. http://www.randomterrain.com/atari-2600-memories-et-tips.html http://www.randomterrain.com/atari-2600-memories-et.html http://www.randomterrain.com/atari-2600-memories-et-map.html
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: exonerator on December 01, 2014, 10:02:40 pm
Digital Press had a nice series of videos titled "Ten Atari 2600 Games Worse Than E.T.", but they appear to be privated now. :-\
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: kr2nist on December 02, 2014, 12:13:04 am
I have to wonder after reading some of these replies: How many of you actually played, no struggled through this game as a kid? Because I did. I'm telling you, it really is that bad. I mean seriously: THOSE FUCKING HOLES!!!
I know I had said in a previous post that I had beaten the game when I was a kid, but such the achievement came at a price of broken controllers. So yeah, I know ALLLLLLLL about those damn holes....
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: theflea on December 02, 2014, 06:16:52 am
Ya I can name quite a few worse games then E.T. I played it and beat it, while it was nothing worth playing again, it's not the worst game made by a long shot. Superman 64 is far worse. lol ::)
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: soera on December 02, 2014, 09:30:10 am
I have to wonder after reading some of these replies: How many of you actually played, no struggled through this game as a kid? Because I did. I'm telling you, it really is that bad. I mean seriously: THOSE FUCKING HOLES!!!
This was me. I absolutely hated those holes. You would get close to the top and almost escape and then boom, back down you fell. I know someone mentioned the video on how to get out but when this game was current and when I played it, I had neither a manual or any type of video to watch on how to do it.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: blipcs76 on December 02, 2014, 09:39:53 am
I played it all the time as a kid and never thought of it as a bad game. Over the years, I've played many games far worse than E.T., but its gained the reputation of being the worst game of all time and few people will come to defend it or throw out examples of "You think E.T. is bad? You must have never played ____________ before." Come back after you've played something like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: dashv on December 02, 2014, 02:56:34 pm
I played it all the time as a kid and never thought of it as a bad game. Over the years, I've played many games far worse than E.T., but its gained the reputation of being the worst game of all time and few people will come to defend it or throw out examples of "You think E.T. is bad? You must have never played ____________ before." Come back after you've played something like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Jekyll and Hyde another over hated game. :)
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: soera on December 02, 2014, 03:27:45 pm
This brings up an interesting question. Is there a game that is considered universally horrible? ET, Friday the 13, Jaws, Shaq-Fu, Superman64 ... all these games have been listed before among some of the worst games ever made. But is there one that is so bad that basically everyone dislikes it?
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: exonerator on December 02, 2014, 03:36:09 pm
Probably Superman 64. There's really nothing redeemable, even if you read the manuals. At least E.T. has the charm and forgiveness of it being on the 2600.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: abe on December 02, 2014, 03:36:24 pm
This brings up an interesting question. Is there a game that is considered universally horrible? ET, Friday the 13, Jaws, Shaq-Fu, Superman64 ... all these games have been listed before among some of the worst games ever made. But is there one that is so bad that basically everyone dislikes it?
I'd be surprised if there was somebody who actually didn't at least dislike Superman64.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: burningdoom on December 02, 2014, 03:45:08 pm
This brings up an interesting question. Is there a game that is considered universally horrible? ET, Friday the 13, Jaws, Shaq-Fu, Superman64 ... all these games have been listed before among some of the worst games ever made. But is there one that is so bad that basically everyone dislikes it?
I'd be surprised if there was somebody who actually didn't at least dislike Superman64.
It's not well-known, but I dare you to show me someone who has actually played Conan on NES and enjoyed that broken piece of trash.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: turf on December 02, 2014, 03:48:11 pm
This brings up an interesting question. Is there a game that is considered universally horrible? ET, Friday the 13, Jaws, Shaq-Fu, Superman64 ... all these games have been listed before among some of the worst games ever made. But is there one that is so bad that basically everyone dislikes it?
I'd be surprised if there was somebody who actually didn't at least dislike Superman64.
It's not well-known, but I dare you to show me someone who has actually played Conan on NES and enjoyed that broken piece of trash.
I've played it. It's trash. There are a bunch of NES games that are that bad. While you're looking for that diamond in the rough, you'll come across a whole lot of plain ole rocks.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: dashv on December 02, 2014, 04:38:08 pm
Superman 64. Deserves the hate.
I picked up Shaq Fu last weekend for SNES and while it's not the best fighter in the world I thought it was certainly better than Ranma 1/2. (The first Ranma fighting game, not the 3rd which is awesome.)
The graphics and sound are great. The story mode is very silly and entertaining.
The controls, hit detection, and super wide fight space are what makes it a hard game to play through.
But with some button mashing the game is beatable in about 15-20 minutes.
It was worth the $2 I spent on it.
I saw a YouTube video the other day where a guy was swearing up a storm hating on the game, it's graphics, etc. with flat out ridiculous comments like "Atari has better graphics than this!" it was obvious to me he was hating on it for the sake of hating on it.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: exonerator on December 02, 2014, 05:39:47 pm
Any game that has Shaquille O'Neal performing kung fu on green skeletons, red Carnage-looking guys, and mummies, with loads of Pepsi advertising is okay in my book.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: burningdoom on December 02, 2014, 07:12:34 pm
I have to wonder after reading some of these replies: How many of you actually played, no struggled through this game as a kid? Because I did. I'm telling you, it really is that bad. I mean seriously: THOSE FUCKING HOLES!!!
That last line was originally going to say, "FUCK THOSE HOLES!!!"
...yeah, decided to reword that after I had it written in front of me, lol.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: freeplay on December 03, 2014, 04:14:05 pm
Another vote for no. I beat the game regularly when I was around nine years old. The holes didn't bother me; I liked the challenge, actually.
EDIT: Thanks for the warm welcome, guys!
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: argyle on December 03, 2014, 04:24:04 pm
I didn't like it growing up, but I didn't HATE it either. I hated Swordquest: Earthworld, *that* is a horrible game.
EDIT: Freeplay, love your PSO icon - and welcome to the forum! :)
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: exonerator on December 03, 2014, 04:48:40 pm
Welcome to the site, freeplay! ;D
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: kr2nist on December 04, 2014, 10:25:18 am
I didn't like it growing up, but I didn't HATE it either. I hated Swordquest: Earthworld, *that* is a horrible game.
While I too was going to nominate Superman 64 as a universally hated game, I'll also agree to hating Swordquest: Earthworld. (...thanks for jarring my memory there, Argyle. LOL!)
Speaking of which, wasn't there another Swordquest game too?
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: abe on December 04, 2014, 11:53:06 am
I didn't like it growing up, but I didn't HATE it either. I hated Swordquest: Earthworld, *that* is a horrible game.
While I too was going to nominate Superman 64 as a universally hated game, I'll also agree to hating Swordquest: Earthworld. (...thanks for jarring my memory there, Argyle. LOL!)
Speaking of which, wasn't there another Swordquest game too?
Swordquest is actually a whole series. There's also Fireworld, Waterworld, and a fourth game in the series (which remains unreleased), Airworld.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: pacpix on December 04, 2014, 10:06:13 pm
I didn't like it growing up, but I didn't HATE it either. I hated Swordquest: Earthworld, *that* is a horrible game.
While I too was going to nominate Superman 64 as a universally hated game, I'll also agree to hating Swordquest: Earthworld. (...thanks for jarring my memory there, Argyle. LOL!)
Speaking of which, wasn't there another Swordquest game too?
Swordquest is actually a whole series. There's also Fireworld, Waterworld, and a fourth game in the series (which remains unreleased), Airworld.
The games themselves are disappointing, but I have always found the story/contest itself interesting.
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: argyle on December 05, 2014, 07:42:10 am
I didn't like it growing up, but I didn't HATE it either. I hated Swordquest: Earthworld, *that* is a horrible game.
While I too was going to nominate Superman 64 as a universally hated game, I'll also agree to hating Swordquest: Earthworld. (...thanks for jarring my memory there, Argyle. LOL!)
Speaking of which, wasn't there another Swordquest game too?
Swordquest is actually a whole series. There's also Fireworld, Waterworld, and a fourth game in the series (which remains unreleased), Airworld.
The games themselves are disappointing, but I have always found the story/contest itself interesting.
Well sure, the only way they could get people to play them was to bribe them - and even that didn't work well enough for them to finish the series. :P
Title: Re: Was E.T really that bad?
Post by: pacpix on December 05, 2014, 10:19:44 pm
I didn't like it growing up, but I didn't HATE it either. I hated Swordquest: Earthworld, *that* is a horrible game.
While I too was going to nominate Superman 64 as a universally hated game, I'll also agree to hating Swordquest: Earthworld. (...thanks for jarring my memory there, Argyle. LOL!)
Speaking of which, wasn't there another Swordquest game too?
Swordquest is actually a whole series. There's also Fireworld, Waterworld, and a fourth game in the series (which remains unreleased), Airworld.
The games themselves are disappointing, but I have always found the story/contest itself interesting.
Well sure, the only way they could get people to play them was to bribe them - and even that didn't work well enough for them to finish the series. :P