IGN's Top 10 Video Game Turkeys

[Gregory DG]

Three Atari's on the list (surprise, surprise.)

 

http://retro.ign.com/articles/934/934001p1.html

 

Guess what is the #1 turkey?

[Artlover]

Well, 4 times actually if you include turkey #5.

[Christophero Sly]

Ugh... doesn't anyone check their facts anymore?

[vdub_bobby]

Without looking, I'll guess ET as #1, with Pac-Man on there somewhere. Or the 7800...or the Jaguar...or the 5200's controllers. Or...

 

EDIT: Well, I was a little off, though not by much. With Atari, there's just so much to choose from.

Edited December 2, 2008 by vdub_bobby

[chrisbid]

give the writer credit, the blame for ET's failure was placed on Atari, not Howard Scott Warshaw

[Christophero Sly]

Except ET wasn't a failure.

[Atarifever]

Now here's a turkey that hit the market completely half-baked: a system that never matched the marketing promise. While the Atari marketers were busy touting the first "64 bit" game system during an era (1993) where bit-count seemed to mean more to gamers than actual gameplay, the company developers, both in-house and third-party,were scrambling in the background trying to make heads and tails of the awkward hardware while dealing severely constricting budgets and schedules. At launch there were only a spare couple of games, including the pack-in Cybermorph, a truly awful attempt at an open world Star Fox and Trevor McFur and the Crescent Galaxy, a pathetic and rigid arcade shooter. The games trickled out at a pace of one or two a month, which didn't help attract an audience. (Written by Craig Harris)

That has to be the most painfully bad writing I have ever seen. Sentence number two is... awful. Also, why does the first sentence have that colon there? For looks? It reads like something written by a schizophrenic.

 

By the way, does this sort of thing annoy anyone else when they think about the effect it is having? These constant(ly bad) top 10 lists always make the same false claims. What that means is, despite the fact that almost all the people involved are still around, videogame history is being rewritten while it is still only 30-40 years old. What will people be saying about Atari by 2040? That it was a semi-popular pong pinball machine producer that went under in 1953 when it produced the movie Pacman vs. E.T. 2?

Edited December 2, 2008 by Atarifever

[Christophero Sly]

What will people be saying about Atari by 2040? That it was a semi-popular pong pinball machine producer that went under in 1953 when it produced the movie Pacman vs. E.T. 2?

[Crazy Climber]

Looks like mostly the same recycled garbage I have been reading for years, the Atari info at least. Too bad Lair is so horrible, I have never played it but it really looks cool. I guess once it costs less then $10 I can still give it a shot but when you hear so many negative comments towards something it kind of scares you away.

[Artlover]

Except ET wasn't a failure.

Here he go again.....

 

The fact that 1.5 million copies or so were sold placing it in the top 10 best selling cartridges list doesn't mean it's NOT a failure.

 

Between the returns of previously sold units (has a number ever been worked out for this yet?), production costs, a remaining unsold stock of 2.5-4.5 million units (didn't come close to selling as well as they thought it would or want it to), and the cost of moving licensing (what was it, $25 million) - I seriously doubt the "Expense vs. Return" ratio was all that great. Did Atari even actually make a "profit" in the end?

 

When a game contributes to your company's debt and demise, it's not a success.

 

Then you have to consider that a sale doesn't equal a satisified and happy customer. The fact is, many a person who bought it were ultimately disappointed with what they got.

 

When a game fails to do what it is supposed to and entertain your customers, but rather makes them angry with you, it's not a success.

 

Futher, the amount of sales don't mean much anyways because that was/is largely driven by name/fanboy effect. Seriously, even the defenders (even the programmers themselves) concure that these games have issues and wern't the best, yet they outsold many excelent games by leaps & bounds. Lets face it, it only sold the numbers it did because of the "name". To that end, both Pac-Man and E.T. could have been nothing but title screens with no game at all, and I'm willing to bet they still would have sold better then most games. You couldn't try before you buy to see for yourself if the game sucked, there was no internet to look it up on, video game magazines were only once and didn't do you any good if you didn't have it to read, there wern't really many TV shows that did regular reviews of home console games back then, TV commercials never showed enough to give you a real idea of how a game was, word of mouth is only so fast.

 

When a game can't sell beyond it's initial gimick/hook (name), it's not a success.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Artlover

[Wester]

Looks like mostly the same recycled garbage I have been reading for years, the Atari info at least. Too bad Lair is so horrible, I have never played it but it really looks cool. I guess once it costs less then $10 I can still give it a shot but when you hear so many negative comments towards something it kind of scares you away.

 

Didn't they eventually fix the controls problem in Lair? Or did I imagine that?

[Christophero Sly]

Except ET wasn't a failure.

Here he go again.....

 

The fact that 1.5 million copies or so were sold placing it in the top 10 best selling cartridges list doesn't mean it's NOT a failure.

 

Between the returns of previously sold units (has a number ever been worked out for this yet?), production costs, a remaining unsold stock of 2.5-4.5 million units (didn't come close to selling as well as they thought it would or want it to), and the cost of moving licensing (what was it, $25 million) - I seriously doubt the "Expense vs. Return" ratio was all that great. Did Atari even actually make a "profit" in the end?

 

When a game contributes to your company's debt and demise, it's not a success.

 

I'm not suggesting that the game was an unqualified "success", and my unfavorable opinion of the game is on the record, but the problem I have in considering E.T. a "failure" is that there isn't a shred of credible evidence to support the claims that there were 5+ million unsold and returned copies of the game.

 

Even if that number were accurate, and even with the high licensing fee, if Atari sold only 1.5 - 2 million copies of the game (which I feel is a realistic figure given the utter ubiquity of this game in the wild) at ~$50 a pop, then Atari would have, at least, been able to break even on the game.

 

Perhaps Atari expected the game to turn the kind of profits that would compensate for the general losses they were suffering as a result of the problems that were plaguing the industry as a whole at that time. If that was Atari's expectation, then the game probably would have been considered a failure when viewed in such an unrealistic context. But that wouldn't have been E.T.'s failure, that would have been Atari's failure.

 

Then you have to consider that a sale doesn't equal a satisified and happy customer. The fact is, many a person who bought it were ultimately disappointed with what they got.

Based on the testimony I've read on this forum, at least as many were not disappointed.

 

When a game fails to do what it is supposed to and entertain your customers, but rather makes them angry with you, it's not a success.

 

When a game can't sell beyond it's initial gimick/hook (name), it's not a success.

 

Futher, the amount of sales don't mean much anyways because that was/is largely driven by name/fanboy effect. Seriously, even the defenders (even the programmers themselves) concure that these games have issues and wern't the best, yet they outsold many excelent games by leaps & bounds. Lets face it, it only sold the numbers it did because of the "name". To that end, both Pac-Man and E.T. could have been nothing but title screens with no game at all, and I'm willing to bet they still would have sold better then most games. You couldn't try before you buy to see for yourself if the game sucked, there was no internet to look it up on, video game magazines were only once and didn't do you any good if you didn't have it to read, there wern't really many TV shows that did regular reviews of home console games back then, TV commercials never showed enough to give you a real idea of how a game was, word of mouth is only so fast.

That assessment is all well and fine with 25 years of hindsight, and I mostly agree with what you're saying. Nevertheless, to consider E.T. a failure, based on the criteria you've set forth here, you would have to assume that Atari was actually sensitive to those considerations. But, clearly, they weren't. Whether the game sucked or not just wasn't part of the "success vs. failure" equation for Atari.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Christophero Sly

[Gregory DG]

I'd like to declare this a turkey of a Top Ten list. Especially considering that it includes the Jaguar (that has over 70 commercial games) and not the Virtual Boy (what, 15 games and could damage your eyesight?)

 

Yeah, turkey all right...

[vdub_bobby]

I'd like to declare this a turkey of a Top Ten list. Especially considering that it includes the Jaguar (that has over 70 commercial games) and not the Virtual Boy (what, 15 games and could damage your eyesight?)

 

Yeah, turkey all right...

Agreed, the Virtual Boy should have been on the list.

 

But that doesn't mean the Jaguar shouldn't have!

 

When this is your spirited defense...

has over 70 commercial games

I think that says it all.

 

EDIT: Besides, a marketing tagline of "Do The Math." (or whatever it was) has got to be worth some bonus Turkey points.

Edited December 4, 2008 by vdub_bobby

[jboypacman]

Yup agreed both the Virtual Boy and Jaguar belong on this list(Sorry Jag fans ).

[Gregory DG]

Hey, I'm just saying that 70 choices are much better than 15.

[jboypacman]

Can't argue with that logic Gregory thats for sure,lol.

[Mirage]

Well, let's do a quasi-scientific estimate of how many E.T. carts were sold based on evidence we have, just for the U.S.:

 

50 states * 500 thrift-type stores per state = 25,000

(25,000) * (15 years * 12 E.T. carts per year for each thrift-type store) = 4,500,000

(4,500,000) + (1 E.T. cart per each of 5000 garage sales per year) = 4,505,000

(4,505,000) + (2 E.T. carts per each of 500 lots listed on ebay each year) = 4,506,000

(4,506,000) - (estimated returns to thrift stores, garage sales from original finds in the wild = 50,000) = 4,456,000

(4,456,000) - (estimated carts tossed away at some point before thrift/resale from 1982-2008 = 5,000,000) = 9,456,000

 

So, I guesstimate nearly 10,000,000 E.T. carts sold and not returned to Atari when new.

 

Wholly inaccurate, I'm sure (and don't get upset with me, I'm joking!), but based on the number of E.T.'s I've passed up in the wild over the years, it sure seems about right, doesn't it?! Every time I read that people believe that "so many" E.T. carts were returned after being bought then crushed makes me wonder just how many of these things they really did make!!! Must have been an absurd number!

Edited December 5, 2008 by Mirage1972

[DracIsBack]

Here he go again.....

The fact that 1.5 million copies or so were sold placing it in the top 10 best selling cartridges list doesn't mean it's NOT a failure.

 

Agree. What irks me though is that some of the media remember ET as being more of a failure than it was! I was surprsied this article made the point of mentioning that 1.5 million people actually did buy the game. Would probably have been considered a hit had millions more not been produced and destroyed.

 

The same some people remember ET, you'd think it sold 20 copies before 80 million were dropped in a landfill. In short, yeah, it was a big screwup, but one that a surprising number of people did actually buy.

[PressureCooker2600]

I actually loved ET. Great adventure game.....I don't see what's with all the hype over it sucking.

 

[Artlover]

I actually loved ET. Great adventure game.....I don't see what's with all the hype over it sucking.

 

<SMACK!>

[vdub_bobby]

Here's the complete IGN Turkey list:

#10 Jaguar

#9 Shenmue

#8 Lair

#7 Messiah

#6 Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness

#5 Driv3r

#4 E.T. (2600)

#3 Superman (N64)

#2 Daikatana

#1 Pac-Man (2600)

 

Here are the review scores that IGN gave to those games, where applicable:

#10 Jaguar: NA

#9 Shenmue: 9.7 - Incredible

#8 Lair: 4.9 - Poor

#7 Messiah: 7.5 - Good

#6 Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness: 5.3 - Mediocre

#5 Driv3r: 5.4 - Mediocre

#4 E.T.: NA

#3 Superman: 3.4 - Bad

#2 Daikatana: 5.8 - Mediocre

#1 Pac-Man: NA

 

You have to like this comment, about Shenmue:

While Shenmue did impress the hardcore SEGA base and a contingent of critics

That's a little bit disingenuous. You'd think they'd mention that they, in fact, were one of that "contingent" and that they called the game "Incredible."

Edited December 11, 2008 by vdub_bobby

[Artlover]

You have to like this comment, about Shenmue:

While Shenmue did impress the hardcore SEGA base and a contingent of critics

That's a little bit disingenuous. You'd think they'd mention that they, in fact, were one of that "contingent" and that they called the game "Incredible."

 

It's not fair to take that out of context:

 

This Thanksgiving, IGN celebrates a collection of videogame turkeys -- games and consoles that should have flown (they had wings), but spectacularly crashed in full public view. Now, these turkeys are not just critically savaged games and mishandled consoles. This roll call of unfortunate creations includes financial calamities and victims of their own crushing hype.

 

While Shenmue did impress the hardcore SEGA base and a contingent of critics, it just never clicked. Sales stalled out at 1.2 million.

 

You can be a great game and still be a failure too. This is just one of many examples of that.

[vdub_bobby]

You have to like this comment, about Shenmue:

While Shenmue did impress the hardcore SEGA base and a contingent of critics

That's a little bit disingenuous. You'd think they'd mention that they, in fact, were one of that "contingent" and that they called the game "Incredible."

 

It's not fair to take that out of context:

Yes it is. I'm not arguing that Shenmue was or wasn't a "turkey," I'm pointing out that they were being coy about the how the game was received by critics (saying that only a "contingent" was impressed; yeah, right - check out its score at gamerankings.com: 89% based on 49 reviews. All the critics were impressed at the time.) and distancing themselves from their own over-exuberant call on that game.

Edited December 11, 2008 by vdub_bobby

[PressureCooker2600]

I hated Shenmue