Jump to content

Atariperson23

New Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Atariperson23

  • Rank
    Space Invader

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I didn't say that, I just said if you wanted to play something different than the average Pac-Man, you should try Pac-Man out.
  2. Pac-Man for the Atari 2600 seems to get very scathing reviews. People say the game is just straight-out unplayable. But I think the hate is not directed at the actual product's flaws, I think the hate is directed towards the fact that the actual product is not close to the arcade. But I don't know about you guys, but Pac-Man in my eyes was a quality product, simply because I thought it was so different from all the normal Pac-Man games. I mean, it was unique, and a little more lighthearted than the arcade version, which I felt like got unfairly difficult right from the start. So for that, I commend Tod Frye for making a unique version of Pac-Man (If he's still alive) and Tod, don't let a watered down arcade conversion define who you are. You also worked on California Games, Summer Games, Winter Games, Xevious, The Swordquest Series, and finally Aquaventure (a.k.a looney and hot) So there was a lot more to him than strikes the eye. Originality: B Most of the Pac-Man conversions are just trying to emulate the arcade original, not trying to add anything new to the mix. Well, Tod Frye trying to do something different might have got very negative reviews, but at least it somehow works. I mean, if you really think about it, playing 1 game over and over again is kind of boring. Tod Frye tried to bring something different to the table, and it isn't disastrous! His take, as I said earlier was a different approach than the oversaturated amounts of Pac-Man clones already on the market. So why are you guys criticizing a man for doing something new? And besides, Pac-Man isn't the worst maze game on the 2600, that would have to go to Merlin's Walls, Pac-Kong or Pizza Chef. So why don't you haters count your blessings and stop giving Pac-Man and Tod such a hard time! (Although, they shouldn't have named the game Pac-Man, maybe Maze-Man or Hungry-Man, because it doesn't feel like Pac-Man) Gameplay: C There are 1 1/2 dozen original maze games on the 2600. They range from incredible (Mines Of Minos) to great (Tunnel Runner) to good (Maze Craze) To mediocre (Go Go Home Monster) To bad (Chase The Chuck Wagon) To Unplayable (X-Man). So where does Pac-Man land? Somewhere between Maze Craze and Go Go Home Monster. I mean, it's not even close to the quality of Mines Of Minos, but it's definitely not as bad as X-Man. So Pac-Man kind of fits in the middle of the maze games. That's not very bad when you consider all the hate and negativity Pac-Man recieves. If there's one game that deserves to be shamed, it's Surfer's Paradise. That's probably one of the worst games in 2600 history, and that's even if you do count Pac-Man! Oh, and here's a secret. Tod Frye never had 4K of memory to work with. He had 2K. He spent half of the 4K memory on a two-player mode. He only had as much memory to work with as Combat. So from that perspective, Pac-Man cannot be arcade-perfect. The gameplay is OK, a little easy and a little hard to play because of flicker, but the flicker isn't terrible, unlike what so many other people say. The movement is a little tired, but not frustrating. Lastly, the color pallette is OK, but a little too bright and dull. Graphics: C The graphics are overall not anything like Pac-Man, but i'm not downgrading it because of that. I'm downgrading the game's grade because it just looks bad in general, even for a 2600 2K 1982 title. Everything looks like a big mess, with Pacman and the ghosts extremely pixelated, the colors just plain eye-straining, the ghosts hard to pinpoint, almost everything a square or rectangle, and the maze very sloppy. But again, that's tough to blame, considering how little Tod had to work with. I think he could've done better if he didn't include a 2-player mode. That way, he could've done a better job. By the way, the released version is not a prototype. Sound Effects: D+ Sound effects are the only thing from Pac-Man that can't really be defended. The sounds are ear-gratingly sharp and terribly dull. If you want to play 2600 Pac-Man, play it with the sounds on mute. Otherwise, don't play it. Don't say I didn't warn you. Final Grade: C While it might not be the best arcade conversion of Pac-Man, it is still playable. If you have a couple of dollars and some minutes, give Pac-Man a try. It didn't really cause the video game industry to crash. That honor would belong to a lot of poor quality games. Not one, but a lot of rushed and poor quality games. For example, games like the "erotic" genre. I dare anyone to step forward and say they are the programmer of Custer's Revenge. I bet the person who programmed it is ashamed of it even today.
  3. Before I start the review, I feel like I underrated the game Pitfall! by giving it a unfair B, since I was frustrated on how the game was so friggin hard to understand. If you'd like to see a revised Pitfall! Atari 2600 Review, just write it in the comment section. Anyways, Name This Game is a game so obscure and such a prime example of shovelware that this review could just be three words: Forgettable, Bizarre, Disposable. This game is the game that killed U.S Games, and left a bad name to the U.S Games brand, and is also one of the prime reasons the Atari 2600 collapsed within fifteen years of launch. And the more offensive part, as if it wasn't offensive enough, that Henry Will IV, the programmer who created this, also worked on the famous-ish game Montezuma's Revenge! But amazingly, that still isn't the most offensive part. The most offensive part is that U.S Games offered you $10,000 to do a random name for such a weird game. The chances of winning were sparse, and seemed more like a cynical cash grab than anything else. Oh, and the US Games CEO later became the Froggo CEO. I guess garbage is contagious. Originality: C- Name This Game is yet another one-screen shooting game. It's quite similar to Space Invaders in the essence of the fact that you have to stop the shark from hitting the ground and the shark gets faster every time he hits the edge of the screen (SoUnDs fAmIlIaR?) And if the shark hits the ground, you die! Oh, and like a lot of other games, you have to protect something (Treasure, but the graphics are so bad you can't tell what it is offhand, you must look at the manual) Name This Game is also like Megamania, where you have a limited oxygen supply, and it's like Skindiver and Treasure Below (In these games, you also have to protect/get treasure, you also have to kill underwater animals, you also have to do a bunch of half-monotonous stuff) So Name This Game is such a substandard Space Invader clone-ish game, and such games were so common you could find them for $10 at the drugstore, and Name This Game borrows from a ton of games while managing to be worse than the games it borrows from, and Name This Game doesn't even pretend that it's not a cynical, bargain-bin, shovelware game. If there is something original, it's the short musical tone in the attract mode that doesn't make you want to press the "Mute" button and the guy helping you with oxygen supplies to prevent you from dying. And maybe the octopus part. But other than that, it's another of those Space Invader/Atlantis/Megamania/Demon Attack/Phoenix clones. Gameplay: D The gameplay is OK for the first few rounds, but after that the game becomes far too repetitive. It seems like the game never becomes any harder, and that seriously hampers the replay value. There is no objective except to shoot a shark and octopus over and over again. The collision detection is also ridiculous: Once, the bullet went through the shark, but the shark still didn't die. The complete monotony, non-objective game and horrid collision detection, with the lack of any background whatsoever makes this game a nightmare to play. In fact, the only reason I gave this a D instead of an F is because it is slightly, and I mean slightly enjoyable for about fifteen seconds, before you want to tear this cartridge apart and burn it in hell. What a piece of crap. Graphics:C- The graphics seem painfully simple, with everything rendered in one color and with lack of detail. In fact, you can opine that this game looks like a 70's 2K game than a 80s 4K game. I mean, the graphics in A Game Of Concentration, Outlaw, Checkers and Stampede are at least pretty detailed, and you can argue that they look better than the Name This Game graphics. And lack of detail and effort can be reasoned with if everything wasn't in it's natural color. I'm not Pablo Picasso, but a diving suit isn't green. And a treasure chest of gold probably isn't orange. And the sky (on the top) shouldn't be yellow. Also, why does the Octopus look like a computerized demon? Yup, Name This Game could probably fit in 2K of memory perfectly, which just comes to show how much of a failure this game was in the time of blockbusters like Atlantis, Pitfall, and a bunch of other hit games that would make U.S Games cry if they ever saw them. Sound Effects: C Sound effects in the game are basic three-note blips and beeps, like Space Invaders simple. But there is a nice musical tune at the beginning that I must say is pretty good. Still, when a shark gets shot, you'd expect a large explosion noise rather than a 8-bit grunt. And also, why is there no noise of the ocean wave crashing, or the shark moving (You could accompany the Jaws theme with the moving) Or the motor of the boat moving? Is that too much to ask?! So yes, U.S Games crashed after 1 year and so did Froggo. Sense a trend? Final Grade: D+ OK, maybe you expected a worse grade than D+. Maybe D- or F. But Name This Game did have a few redeeming qualities, such as a musical tone and maybe small entertainment. But other than that, I say don't waste your time over this unless you are a very ambitious collector.
  4. Yar's Revenge is one of the Atari 2600's best games, through and through. Howard Scott Warshaw was truly the master of games, even though he only made four games. He managed to push the Atari 2600 to astronomical levels, for example giving a tremendous amount of depth to a game (Raiders Of The Lost Ark), create a entire world in a game (E.T) and have a boss battle (Saboteur) And all of his games with the exception of Saboteur have the distinction of selling a Million cartridges or more. If the above facts didn't convince you, the fact that all his games except E.T have gotten very positive reviews from critics should convince you. But enough with this crazy talk, let's begin the review! Originality: A+ Yar's Revenge is completely original. From the gameplay to the graphics to the storyline, to the sounds, the game is one of the most original games i've ever seen. Nothing like it in the arcades, nothing like it in the tabletops, and nothing like it in the 2600. However, Howard Scott Warshaw wanted to do Star Castle, but he thought it couldn't be done. So instead of doing a watered down rip-off, he chose the better path: The path that makes him one of the greatest programmers of all time. In fact, Yar's Revenge is the first Atari game to feature source code in the game, the first Atari game to have a full-screen explosion, the first (and last) game to feature a fly facing off against a spaceship, and the first Atari game to have two easter eggs (Razak, the name of the planet spelled backwards sounds like Ray Kassar, Atari's CEO at the time), and (If you shoot the Qotile at mid-air, a black line will appear, and you go to the lower third of the screen, and when the explosion ends, you'll see HSWWSH, Howard Scott Warshaw's initials.) So yes, Yar's Revenge offers a lot of firsts to make your Atari 2600 experience so darn endearing. Gameplay: A+ Yars moves fast, but not too fast to make the gameplay frustrating. Yars can also move in eight directions, which is good because it makes gameplay slightly more at ease. Yars can get killed by his own cannon, the Qotile swirl and the bullet. But one thing is that this eventually gets very hard. Very hard, mind you, not impossible. So many game lose their appeal from being nigh-near impossible, for example Fast Food, enjoyable at first but impossible two minutes later. And unlike games like Swordquest which are very hard to understand, Yar's Revenge barely needs a read of a manual. Incredible how simple but addicting this game, Howard Scott Warshaw knew how to push the limits of the Atari 2600 like never before. And this game shows. Graphics: A The graphics are about as good as they get on the Atari 2600. Yar's looks like a fly, which is the character he is representing. There are animations like Yars flapping his wings, Yars dying, the Swirl spinning and the wall moving around the place. And the Qotile looked just like a evil starship. Oh, and the Zorlon cannon and wall are brilliantly multicolored. Amazing, isn't it? My only complain is that their is very faint, but a little annoying flicker. I just don't like that part. Other than that, everything is perfect, spot on. Sound Effects: A+ The sound effects are superb, with Warshaw making wonders with the TIA. There is a very realistic humming noise, with a nice beat to it. And the Qotile transformation noise into the Swirl sounds pretty solid. And the cannon noise? I don't know why the same sound effects can be found in so many games, but it gets the job done. And the explosion sound effect? Really like a 8-bit version of a thunderclap, except with a catchy beat. And finally, the death. I don't know how HSW managed to create a completely original sound effect under a horrible sound chip, but he did it. His Raiders March and Flying Theme in the other two games managed to be decent too. Final Grade: A+ Wow... what a game. From the ingenuity of the game itself, to the absolutely beautiful sound effects, to the visually appealing graphics, to the addicting but fast gameplay, this game is the reason you should appreciate the Atari 2600. It's just so hard to say anything bad about one of the best games on the Atari 2600, and maybe all time.
  5. We all remember Atari. So what's your favorite company that made games? 13 choices for you to make!
  6. Pitfall is one of the most highly rated games in the Atari 2600. It's originality and depth is what makes it the second best-selling game on the 2600 (Behind Pac-Man, a game which I actually like) And that's why i'm reviewing Pitfall for the Atari 2600 today. Originality:B+ Pitfall seems to be original. What I mean is, the plot is not copied off another released game, but it's another platform game. And on the Atari 2600, platform games made up like 95% of all games on the Atari 2600. Also, it seems to be similar to Jungle Hunt, a 1982 platformer. So i'm starting to think that Pitfall wasn't entirely original. Please tell me in the comments if Pitfall came after Jungle Hunt or not. In either case, it doesn't seem to be 100% original. Gameplay: B- Notice the earlier comparison I made to Jungle Hunt. I made that comparison because Pitfall is Jungle Hunt slowed one hundred times: It's insanely slow. The only real way you can die is the crocodiles, which is nearly impossible to overcome, because Pitfall Harry moves like a dead worm in molasses and the crocodiles move a trillion miles per hour. And the gameplay repeats itself after you get treasure, so it's kind of boring. But it does manage to give you a lot of thrills if you play it right (which I can't) so I won't be too mean on it. After all, Pitfall has god-like status, and is the probable king of platformers, so who am I, a middle-aged couch potato to anger the gods? Graphics: B Pitfall had pretty good graphics, but the graphics are kind of overrated. They're first-rate, but not very special. They're kind of colorful, but not bright and dazzling. You want a game with colorful, detailed colors? Try the majority of Bit Corporation and Xonox games. Honestly, the reason i'm not being generous to it is because I don't really find it fun or special. It has a rip-off element of Jungle Hunt, the gameplay just doesn't match my taste because it's kind of easy and monotonous, and the graphics didn't amaze me that much. Sound:B The sound is simplistic but a little too pixelated. Everything sounds 8-bit and just not right. The sounds are a little bit off-key. For example, the Tarzan yell sounds too 80s. What's that you say? The Atari couldn't produce right tunes? Check out Pitfall II, Gyruss, California Games, Frogger (Starpath) and Jungle Hunt. Those games had wonderful sound effects the TIA could hardly reproduce. Final Grade: B Pitfall is somewhat good, with a lot of fine parts to it, but it's overrated. Nothing really special happens in the game. Want a real game with real action? Try Pitfall II or Jungle Hunt.
  7. I am in my late thirties, my first Atari was at 5, and my first game was Seahawk. Also, thanks for the correction.
  8. Incredible graphics. I'm impressed. I may actually review that game next.
  9. OK, I've reviewed Solaris and Combat, which are two true masterpieces. And E.T wasn't that bad. But today, I review Warren Robinett's 50 year old "masterpiece", Adventure. Adventure was one of the very first games with more than one screen. Pac-man, released three years later, has one screen. So does Breakout and Pong, and a ton of other games. Adventure also has the first "Easter egg" which says "Made By Warren Robinett" and it's one of the first games with a discernible ending. Gameplay:B+ I found the game play to be a little bit lacking, due to the fact that it could be beaten in under fifteen minutes. Adventure is also extremely lackluster in variation mode 1, also variation mode 2 isn't bad. Variation mode 3, however is incredible. It has thrills, moments of impending doom, and everything you could possibly want in a extremely old game. I don't suggest mode 1, it's trash, it plays a game Zimag would make. Mode 2 is kind of light on game play but delivers mediocre thrills, but once you memorize where everything is and avoid the bat, game play is so-so. Mode 3 is no pushover, and it offers plenty of new stuff to the table, and it's actually a quality game! Although, I can't recommend mode 3 for beginners. However, in spite of few flaws such as a castle being locked and then unlocked, Adventure manages to deliver joy to your dusty wood grain console. Originality:A This game was one-of-a-kind. It was something new on the market and not ripped off some obscure arcade title. The programming is also remarkable considering the fact that Warren Robinett had to work two games at the same time (BASIC Programming and Slot Racers) It's a shame Warren Robinett only did four games (Elf Adventure was his fourth), because this game shows that he was a video game master. The setting is extremely authentic, the story line and plot is authentic, the game play is authentic, even the sound effects are authentic. It is blatantly obvious Adventure was not inspired off any existing game. Wow. Just wow. And this is even more impressive considering the fact that nearly all the games of that time were inspired off another game. Graphics: B Yes, graphical limitations cannot be helped. But some of the colors are a hot mess. I mean, purple with gray is not a good idea. Neither is red with gray. Or red with white. Some of the colors may bleed your eyes out. But considering how archaic this game is, the graphics were actually 2-3 years ahead of the time. And, the even more impressive part was that this cartridge used 4KB. In comparison, good games today use 4GB, 4 MILLION times the size of Adventure. Yet Adventure still boasts 32 (or 33) playfields. Which, even by today's standards, is nothing short of incredible. And it gets a thousand times more incredible when you hear this game was made on a console with 128 bytes of memory. In short, this game is nothing short of a technological achievement. But what's even more remarkable is that this game manages to make the objects somewhat realistic (I mean, even though the dragons look like ducks, you could still recognize them with a tinge of imagination) Sound Effects: B+ Sound effects are minimalist and relatively soft on the ears. There is no music, but that's not my concern. My concern is that sound effects are a little too simple. I mean, they're just two different notes at most! However, if sound effects were elaborated, the gameplay would not be as good. But why couldn't Atari wait until 1982 to make it 8KB? That way, everything could've been elaborated, including the sound effects! It's actually a big shame that sound effects weren't good enough, because sound effects sometimes makes the game remarkable (Gyruss and Pitfall II) And I feel like Adventure had a chance to not be so archaic if it didn't have so archaic sound effects. Final Grade: B+ Technically speaking, Adventure is insanely advanced. It doesn't deserve to be on the Atari 2600, maybe the 7800 at least. I mean, this game is hard to make on the Atari 2600 with 32KB, let alone 4! It took Warren Robinett one year to make this, and that's short. I would really like to see the original source code, if that's possible. But gameplay speaking, it's... still good. But don't try mode 1 unless you're an absolute beginner, try mode 2 for moderate but fun thrills and mode 3 for the best thrills. Do I recommend it, though? Absolutely. Definitely. 102%.
  10. Solaris is hailed to be one of the most graphically impressive games of the Atari 2600. Not surprising, because it used a massive (for the time) 16K for ROM. Only Fatal Run and some Brazilian educational cartridge used more. But is Douglas Neubauer's so-called masterpiece so great? Let's find out! Background: B- OK, I did the exact same formula with E.T and Combat because they were, although good, not sophisticated enough. For such a detailed game like Solaris, I have to review every part of the game. Anyways, the background is pretty dull. You shoot down Zylons (sounds like another game) and other weird ships. I resent that because this is an Atari 2600 game, a console with 128 bytes of RAM, and aren't the graphics bad enough? But the story's better than Dishaster, so i'm okay with that. Still could've done better, though. Depth/Sophistication: A+ Is Adventure Or Pitfall II or Raiders Of The Lost Ark very detailed? Solaris will blow you away! It has a final ending (Which only Raiders Of The Lost Ark also has) and not only that, Solaris has 16 different Quadrants to explore with, both with different colors! They make you feel like you're exploring a entire universe! Not only that, Solaris has the smoothest controls of any game. Move joystick to move, the action button to shoot, move and click for the quadrants and space for blast off. It carries the same complexity as Space Flight Simulator, but it's not as convoluted. Atari always wins! Realism: A+ Solaris offers the highest quality of realism possible. If you have played Solaris at least once, you'll say that Solaris is an pretty amazing game. It has really realistic crashing effects and the fire under your ship is multicolored and flickering. The ship and everything is rightfully colored. There are stars and a landscape, and everything looks true-to-life. If you argue Pitfall II was more realistic, I argue Dishaster was less realistic than Solaris. Gameplay: A+ Gameplay is pretty fast-paced and offers more thrills than an average Atari 2600 game. Solaris, in my opinion is the second most fast-paced space game, falling under Froggo's Cruise Missile. But the gameplay is uninterrupted, something Cruise Missile failed to do (entering the cavern took a heck of a long time) I think Solaris may seem outdated since it's 30 years old, but the gameplay is as new as a young spry of ginger. By the way, I also recommend Cruise Missile (which i'll review in due time) Graphics: A+ Is this even necessary? Solaris has the best graphics of any game in the Atari 2600. Colour palette is extremely tasteful and blockiness is nonexistent. The graphics are as good as a 1997 NES game. This game even has Douglas Neubauer's name in the game, which is extremely rare because Atari didn't give their employees credit (Which is why Activision and Imagic formed) The scrolling is the second smoothest in any Atari 2600 game, behind Froggo's Cruise Missile. But Cruise Missile's scrolling was a little unnecessary, so Solaris kind of deserves the top spot in some way. I think, however, Solaris is more than eye candy. The graphics are necessary the same way humans need oxygen. Sound effects: A+ Solaris has top-tier sound effects which don't sound 8-bit, but rather 16 or 32 bit. There is no music because that would ruin the game, plain and simple. (See Dishaster, Inca Gold, Fire Fly, Sorcerer, Star Fox, Acid Drop, Aufruhr Im Zoo) And, as I mentioned, the crashing and the shooting, and the blasting off sound effects are top-notch. It makes Pitfall II look worthless. Final Grade: A Other than the background, Solaris is one of the greatest Atari hits, and deserves to be remembered as much as Adventure or Pitfall. In fact, if this was released in 1982, the Atari 2600 could've survived until 1998. Although, I also recommend Cruise Missile for it's fast and furious action and pace.
  11. Combat is one of the most recognized games in Atari 2600 history. People know it was the pack-in game with the 2600 we all know and love, but is it too primitive to play? Read on! Originality: B Combat is a very interesting game. That's because it's a rip-off of Kee Games's Tank arcade game. But then again, Kee Games was a fancy name used by Atari to gain more money. Kee Games was another name for Atari. So let's consider it original, even though it technically was made by a company with a different name. But let's not get into the technicallity and just call Combat a original game. Gameplay: A- Gameplay is fresh and entertaining, and it's simplistic but addicting. The shooting and the spawn-killing are worth a laugh, and the action can get fast and furious pretty quickly. Combat is a pleasure to play, not a chore (See Dishaster) and Combat holds elements of gameplay you won't see in most other games (like shoot or die) and Combat is not a bad game (Again, see Dishaster) but the flaws are it only lasts 136 seconds and it's two player only. But that's better than one player only (See Dishaster) and Combat is probably the best 2KB game, and is better than a lot of other 4KB games (See Dishaster) Graphics:A For a game that only took 2048 characters to write, the game's graphics aren't that horrendous. Blockiness is kept to a bare minimum and the color palette doesn't hurt your eyes (See Dishaster), so there isn't too much i can say about it. But I must say, sometimes the minimal blockiness can get really annoying, and I don't like that. Sound Effects: A. The engine noises are 8-bit, but very realistic. It makes me feel "in the mood". There is no background music, but that's no bad thing (See Fire Fly, Sorcerer, Dishaster, Inca Gold, and even Pitfall II to an extent) All in all, simplistic but right. Total Grade:A-. Fair grade, in my opinion. Combat is only not an A or an A+ because it's too short, two-player only, and sometimes the controls are non-intuitive. Otherwise, a must-have game for any Atari 2600 owner
  12. Ok, so I review video games. Especially for the Atari 2600, because the Atari games are interesting. They feel more like novels or movies than games. They elevate games to a higher level. And what better way to start reviews than with the alleged "worst game of all time" E.T the Extra-Terrestrial? But does it deserve an F or an A+? Read on! Graphics: B As you can see, the title screen is Commodore 64 or Atari 7800 worthy. E.T looks like E.T, pretty much. Blockiness is used in the right way (to make E.T look more 8-bit, but at the same time more real) But sadly, the graphics on the game aren't really that good. E.T is a blob of green, the rooms are green, nearly everything is green. But I loved Elliott's full head of hair and striped shirt. That was very impressive for a "Pong Machine" game and even more impressive for "a machine that could only show three colors". And also, the FBI Agent and Scientist are essentially stick figures, but are pretty detailed. They are pretty much Scientists or FBI Agents. E.T himself is OK, despite being green. He's a little bit too 8-bit, but graphical limitations can't really be helped. The playfield graphics represent what they're supposed to be (pits, forest, science institute) although they're a little simplistic. Howard Scott Warshaw should be praised for this, considering he had five weeks to make this stuff. All in all, the graphics are leaning towards "average" and "great", although a little more on the "average" side. Originality: A This game is pretty original. There's nothing like it on the market, unless you count pirated clones. And Steven Spielberg wanted a Pac-Man clone, so you can kind of rejoice that that idea never saw the light of day. Anyways, E.T the movie is pretty hard to capture as a game concept, especially considering the fact that this game was for a game console that draws dragons as deformed ducks. So trying to create a deep, sophisticated, innovative, capturing-the-film game on the Atari 2600 is no easy feat. Then again, Howard Scott Warshaw also made another movie tie-in game (Raiders Of The Lost Ark). But this game captures the film aspect perfectly. E.T is being chased after by adult scientists and FBI agents, just like the movie. ("Keys") and if E.T runs out of energy, he dies (Just like in the film) also, E.T gets energy from Reese's Pieces (just like in the film) and E.T's main job is to phone home ("E.T Phone Home"). It's not an A+ because this game felt kind of like Adventure, but whatever. Gameplay: B+ Gameplay is not bad. You just have to read the manual, just like Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Solaris, two also very sophisticated games. And people say falling in the holes is annoying, but that's because you're moving the joystick up. It says in the manual to not do that. So take 2 minutes of your time to read the F*****g manual. Gameplay is also fast-paced, so you can't wait around too often in one spot. Otherwise, you will feel very depressed, because you have to 1) press Reset or 2) let minutes of hard work disappear. Gameplay is fun, entertaining, but not the best of adventure games. For that, do Adventure or Raiders Of The Lost Ark, or Swordquest. However, E.T is good enough for me to recommend, despite it not being the best. Sound Effects: B The music in the game loops, but it's a pretty good excerpt out of John Williams "Flying Theme." The walking noise is annoying but not unbearable. The FBI/Scientist's walking noise gets louder when he gets near you, which is pretty good, i'll admit. Sound effects are quite minimal, but I don't think a Adventure game needs the "Flying Theme" blasting out at full volume. It's not bad, which is good because the music makes "Fire Fly" unplayable, which is a shame, because it's otherwise playable. Grade:B E.T will be remembered as the scapegoat for Atari's tragic demise. But there were far, far worse games. Just try "Karate" or "Inca Gold." Those games will make E.T look like a masterpiece. Also, try "Dishaster." No gameplay but to hold the action and down button down. Horrid! So before you call out E.T, try those games. You'll start crying for E.T. Begging for it, in fact.
  13. 5,131. Not bad, but not great. MY high score, though.
  14. True. I still remember seeing the epic Sorcerer box art and thinking it'd be a solid game. Boy, i've never been more disappointed ever since.
  15. I don't know, I kind of liked Bobby Is Going Home
×
×
  • Create New...