the E.T. hype

[Mxyzptlk]

As to Toptens post topic. The hype was definitely not worthy of the actual game. I played the hell out of it (I of course never read the manual) and hated it because of the pits. I eventually figured out how to win, but all in all I do not like the game much. Pac-Man is WAY worse. Of course there are other games that are worse (insert any Froggo game here) but as far as the mainstream games that many people bought, Pac-Man and E.T. were crap.

[SoulBlazer]

I think that's a important point to make, Mxyzptlk. We all know that ET and Pac-Man are not the worst games on the system. However, they became known as the games that 'brought down an empire' and 'caused the crash' in the popular media and pubic perception:

 

1) They were produced in HUGE ammounts -- if I recall correctly, both of them were made in ammounts greater then the number of 2600's sold.

2) They were hyped to death.

3) Pac-Man was a bad port of a popular arcade game, while ET was complex and not what the public had been expecting.

4) They were seen as having played a good part in the crash. How much is debatable, but events happened so fast during the early 80's, it's easy to let events and time blend together.

 

All of this taken together can explain why the public sees these two games as crashing the crash, when in reality they are a symptom.

[Schizophretard]

E.T. and Pac-Man are 2 out of the 16 rarity ones. That makes them a success. The market doesn't care if we are disappointed. It only cares rather or not we buy and we obviously did.

[toptenmaterial]

So... if none of us remember E.T. as this big industry eating monster in the early 80s, is it safe to say that the legend is 21st century internet hype? It had to start somewhere.

[+FujiSkunk]

E.T. and Pac-Man are 2 out of the 16 rarity ones. That makes them a success. The market doesn't care if we are disappointed. It only cares rather or not we buy and we obviously did.

 

A small indie film that cost $5 million to make is a nice success if it makes $25 million at the box office.

 

A big-studio film that cost $200 million to make is a colossal failure if it makes $25 million at the box office.

 

It wasn't just that customers bought a lot of E.T.'s. It's that they didn't buy nearly as many as Atari thought they would. And that's even without taking returns into account.

[Schizophretard]

A small indie film that cost $5 million to make is a nice success if it makes $25 million at the box office.

 

A big-studio film that cost $200 million to make is a colossal failure if it makes $25 million at the box office.

 

It wasn't just that customers bought a lot of E.T.'s. It's that they didn't buy nearly as many as Atari thought they would. And that's even without taking returns into account.

 

But disappointment obviously wasn't a cause of the failure. On the consumer side of things it was a success. If Nintendo created a billion Super Mario Bros. there would have been another crash but it would have nothing to do with rather or not the customers were disappointed with the game. Consumers didn't cause the crash by boycotting E.T. unless you count them not buying muiltipe copies as a boycott. From the consumer side of things, E.T. was many times more successful than the Virtual Boy and it's entire library.

[sega_SHARK]

I lived through the crash and don't remember E.T. being the cause of it. A lot of consoles were out at the same time, and a lot of people were buying home computers for the first time. I think some of the "disposable" budget for a lot of households went to home computers, instead of video game consoles and games.

 

I haven't played E.T. in a long, long time. I might not revisit it because my patience for video games seems to grow shorter and shorter....

Raiders of the Lost Ark sucked without the manual (and second joystick) and after giving it an honest try again with the second joystick and manual...

It's not my thing. Sorry.

I'm a huge Raider's fan too. : (

There was one cool thing about the crash though, from 1984 to 1987, ('87 being when the NES really took off in my neighborhood)

games got really cheap, and I got to play tons of fun stuff for the 2600 and INTV

[Andromeda Stardust]

Consumers didn't cause the crash by boycotting E.T. unless you count them not buying muiltipe copies as a boycott.

People bought multiple Twinkies and Hostess still went Bankrupt.

[toptenmaterial]

People bought multiple Twinkies and Hostess still went Bankrupt.

 

Hostess was the parent company and had a lot of other products, just like WB. WB didn't go bankrupt, but they were hurting.

[Andromeda Stardust]

WB = Warner Brothers? Not a good example. Warner Brothers still Exist btw, although a few years ago, they merged with UPN, to form the CW network.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a example is how Archway and Mother's got sold and traded a couple dozen times, and every time their snacks disappeared from store shelves only to reappear again ~6 months later. Except for the iced Ginerbread boys. I waited for those for 15 years before I tasted them again. Exactly how I remembered them as a child. So some day when we are all old diabetic men with dentures and failing taste-buds, we will once again experience the joy formerly known as "Twinkie" only instead of a sweet yummy treat, it will taste like a splooge-filled dirty sock!

Edited December 19, 2012 by stardust4ever

[Schizophretard]

WB = Warner Brothers? Not a good example.

 

Hostess isn't a good example either because a Twinkie is a product that is meant to be purchased multiple times. A cartridge isn't meant to be purchased more than once.

[jrok]

Saying E.T. didn't cause the video game crash is like saying smacking yourself in the head with a hammer doesn't cause cancer. Chances are it doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's good for your health.

 

As for the Twinkie example, you can't return a disappointing Twinkie after use.

[jhd]

Electronic Fun with Computers & Games (January 1983) reported that:

 

“Rather than simply giving Atari permission to turn E.T. into a game, Steven Spielberg was directly involved in all aspects of the design work.” He is a fan of video games, and he worked with [HSW] to design the game. “A coin-operated version of the game should be in the arcades shortly”.

 

Does anyone know how much, if any, development was done on the arcade game? I have not previously heard of it.

[Schizophretard]

Electronic Fun with Computers & Games (January 1983) reported that:

 

“Rather than simply giving Atari permission to turn E.T. into a game, Steven Spielberg was directly involved in all aspects of the design work.” He is a fan of video games, and he worked with [HSW] to design the game. “A coin-operated version of the game should be in the arcades shortly”.

 

Does anyone know how much, if any, development was done on the arcade game? I have not previously heard of it.

 

I'm more interested in the involved in all aspects of the design work part.

[Schizophretard]

Saying E.T. didn't cause the video game crash is like saying smacking yourself in the head with a hammer doesn't cause cancer. Chances are it doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's good for your health.

 

As for the Twinkie example, you can't return a disappointing Twinkie after use.

 

Maybe the ability to return a played game is a greater cause than what title the game is? Imagine what would happen if instead of people trading in used games to Game Stop, they could beat even good games and get a refund. A game ,like a Twinkie, shouldn't be refundable after consumption.

[jrok]

I'm more interested in the involved in all aspects of the design work part.

 

From the sound of it, he sat there with a bemused smirk on his face while Warshaw showed him all his flowcharts and astral coefficients, then said something like, "Can't we just do a Pac-Man clone?" Which sounds like a very Spielbergian thing to say actually -- the man isn't exactly known as a very cerebral or original filmmaker, but he has a great nose for what people like and what works.

 

Or at least, he used to...

:sleep:

[jrok]

A game ,like a Twinkie, shouldn't be refundable after consumption.

 

Haven't you ever been to a terrible movie and demanded your money back? Maybe I can't un-see a crappy flick like "Lady in the Water", but I can surely put that money to better use, or at least give it to a better movie.

 

Imagine what would happen if instead of people trading in used games to Game Stop, they could beat even good games and get a refund.

 

Imagine what would happen if designers still made games that were fun to play even after they were "beat."

 

Edited December 20, 2012 by jrok

[Mad-Mike]

I swear the whole E.T. thing started in the 90's when I used to find one humourous review after another on college student penned website after website or baby GameFAQ's making AVGN-like commentary about it.

 

For example, there was this one guy with a rather rudimentary-HTML'd webpage where he'd review an old 2600 game every week, and use his imagination to come up with the most abstract ideas of what the game was about. IE, Adventure and the Psychotic Ducks (aka. Dragons), I think he called E.T. a pill-eating-hunchback or somethign like that. Seemed all of these sites would, at least half in jest, say E.T. was responsible for the crash, and were penned by guy's like me who were in Huggies when E.T. was on the shelves as a fairly new game.

 

Over time, more and more NES era kids started making their NES pages talk about how E.T. (and later on, including Pac-Man) as reasons for the video game crash. It seems most of the people old enough to remember and know did not site Pac-Man or E.T., but rather, WB management and the far worse games made by 3rd party developers.

 

I think a lot of the crash, personally, was aided by the parents, in a big way. Parents were sick of the kids wanting to Pac-Man all over the 6 o'clock news and saw no redeeming value in the kind of Space Atari was talking about and figured out, giving them a computer with a separate screen and educational software was "the way to go"....after all, everybody wins, the kid gets his games, and gets an education, and thinks it's neat doing his homework on a computer rather than with an old fashioned pen and pencil.

[Velvis]

I have said it before and I will say it again, I think both ET and Pacman played a role in the crash. Those games were hyped and "top of the line" titles from the manufacturer of the system. (ie they weren't obscure 3rd party shovelware with a low price point) They were releases that people wanted and were looking forward to.

 

One could argue ET was a decent game (as others have above), but I don't think anyone thinks it was excellent. I don't think it is arguable that Pacman is anything close to a good game WHEN compared to the arcade version. (which most people had a reasonable expectation that it would be a decent port of the arcade game, within the limits of the hardware.)

 

Both games had an expectation to be "quality titles". Kinda like going to DisneyWorld for the first time and finding it to be no better than the local amusement park. There was an expectation for those two titles and I think both were a let down.

 

Long story short: when you over promise and under deliver people get angry and maybe they aren't so quick to drop $40 (in 1982-84 dollars no less) on your next game because they have been burned. Remember, honest pre-purchase reviews were not commonplace back then. I really believe buyers regret could effect buying new games sight unseen after buying crappy games with no return policy. People stop buying (for other reasons as well) and so starts the crash.

 

I distinctly remember thinking how awful Atari Pacman was immediately on the first few plays. Even my 12 year old videogame "rose colored" glasses couldn't shine that turd.

[Schizophretard]

Haven't you ever been to a terrible movie and demanded your money back? Maybe I can't un-see a crappy flick like "Lady in the Water", but I can surely put that money to better use, or at least give it to a better movie.

 

No.

 

Imagine what would happen if designers still made games that were fun to play even after they were "beat."

 

 

They do and they are all members of this site.

[Andromeda Stardust]

LOL on Warner; I just remembered that WB owned Atari at one point.

 

As for the Twinkie example, you can't return a disappointing Twinkie after use.

Yes, and just like the Twinkie, once you bust the shrink wrap on a video game, you can't return it unless it's defective, in which case they can only exchange it for an identical item. I've never heard of any retailer, then or now, that accepted full refunds on opened games or movies. Unless of course you really enjoy being ripped off, then you can take it back to GameStop where you originally bought it, and they'll buy it back used for $9 and resell it for $55! Edited December 20, 2012 by stardust4ever

[jrok]

No.

 

Hey, that's okay. Being satisfied with a crappy product isn't a crime. That's why E.T. has apologists today, even though Warshaw himself isn't enamored of it.

 

They do and they are all members of this site.

 

All of them? So, every modern game designer with replayability in mind has an AA membership? Do they also support a strict no-refund policy for shitty games?

[kennetzel]

I am 54 and played my Atari in my adulthood. I was in my twenties, young enough to enjoy it, but too old to get so involved. I had a life...LOL. But all I remember was, when the crash began, everybody said "the game console is dead...people will be playing all their games on these fancy new computers. So it seemed the public was now taking the next level and was ready to embrace computers not thinking there was room for both in this world. You do other things on a computer. For the kid who wants to spend hours gaming, they couldn't because Mom was doing the budget or something...so eventually Nintendo proved the game console had a place in the video gaming world allowing kids to still play, while the parents embraced the computers. I think ET and Packman were just a victim of cercumstance...when you can plug in a floppy and play a version that looks like the arcade version and then look at the Atari version...they don't compare, so Pacman was an example of the inadaquecy in the current consoles of the time. That's the way I saw it anyway.

Edited December 20, 2012 by kennetzel

[Schizophretard]

Hey, that's okay. Being satisfied with a crappy product isn't a crime. That's why E.T. has apologists today, even though Warshaw himself isn't enamored of it.

 

It's not the movie theater's fault that my subjective opinion is that the movie sucked. I am paying them money to view a movie in their theater with the understanding that I may or may not like the movie. I'm not going to demand my money back when they provided the service that I expected them too. I saw American Pie in the theater. When it got to the drinking "beer" part two old people walked out. If something completely disgusted and offended me to the point of being uncomfortable like it did them I may walk out to demand a refund. But I'm not going to sit through an enitre film and then complain that it was too boring.

 

All of them? So, every modern game designer with replayability in mind has an AA membership? Do they also support a strict no-refund policy for shitty games?

 

I was just giving a complement to the homebrew community. I'm sure there are modern game designers with replayability in mind that are not members.

 

A modern game I was looking forward to was Spore. I watched the demonstration from 2005 and it looked like it was going to be the greatest game ever. Unfortunately they decided to make a more cute and simplified version to be more appealing to the masses. I was very disappointed but people loved it. If they made the complex Civilization meets Star Trek game I was expecting then it probably would have been a modern day E.T. I would have loved it but 30 years from now the kids from today would probably complain about how complicated it was. I think something like that probably happened with E.T. Maybe they were expecting some cute kids game that uses the kid's controller where you have to find E.T. hiding in stuffed animals or maybe it wasn't complex enough? I don't know. With Pac-Man it is easy seeing what people expected but with E.T. it is complicated. When I look at the commercial it appears to be honestly showing what it is. It even brings up the danger of the wells. If I saw this commercial back then, the game would have met my expectations.

 

[+Random Terrain]

Hey, that's okay. Being satisfied with a crappy product isn't a crime. That's why E.T. has apologists today, even though Warshaw himself isn't enamored of it.

 

This game was supposed to be for kids, so the wells were a stupid idea. Making it hard for the average slack-jawed, nose-picking kid to get out of the wells was a very stupid idea. The game wasn't polished enough before it went out the door. Even the countdown clock didn't work properly.

 

Once you get over the shock of that, the replayability factor mixed with the advanced power zone concept raises E.T. above most crappy games. If E.T. would have been created after 1985 on another console, the power zones would always be in the same places and the interplanetary phone pieces would be in the same wells every time you played, so we can at least be glad that didn't happen.