Is it really the worst retro videogame of all time?
>>3310807
It's actually pretty good. People used to like it before AVGN said it was bad.
>>3310810
Fuck you. I played this way before AVGN was even a thing and it was garbage.
>>3310817
Most licensed Atari games were "garbage" because most of them made no sense without the instructions otherwise they would be "meh".
>>3310823
I'll agree with that. The Superman game was on the same garbage tier.
ET's flop was more a symbol of Atari's problems leading to the crash than a significant factor leading to the crash.
Many Atari games are worse than ET.
No. It is average for an Atari 2600 game.
Short answer: no
Long answer: it might have been something much better if it had been given six months in development like any other Atari game, but it is by no means the worse. Go play final approach, it's a much worse game on the 2600.
It's just buggy and sorta confusing if you don't read the instruction manual.
>>3310868
So it's up there
>>3312625
ba dum tssh
>>3310807
Ehh, you could argue it is as it is arguably the game to have the greatest negative effect on the videogame industry. As a game its not very good but really you could do worse.
Really the main reason it ended up shit was for one simple reason, greed. The Publisher wanted the game finished for the holidays and told the programmer he had 4-5 weeks to make it. Had the game been given the actual time it needed I imagine it would have been a decent 2600 game.
>Is it really the worst retro videogame of all time?
Probably not, but it's really bad. Definitely in the Top 5
>>3312534
Take the console war faggotry back to /v/, if you please.
>>3310807
Far from it. The game is well coded, very decently animated and avgn is a faggot who can not obviously read a fucking manual
>>3312635
Actually no it did not have any real negative effect it was an over populated market that caused the down fall of vg in the 80s
At least it has multiple screens, a "plot" and a way to beat the game. That is actually not very common for 2600 games.
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.
>>3310807
It's actually pretty good for the console it was on
The reason it's widely assumed as bad is the huge amount of underages who have never played an Atari 2600 and have only heard about it from e-celebs
"Look at this shitty game it doesn't have an obvious objective and a tutorial level this is surely the worst game ever made"
Cinemassacre gives this game a fair appraisal
>>3310810
you are literally retarded and need to learn to form opinions for yourself
I didn't find it on this thing I bought so it obviously didn't do that well.
>>3313002
beause licenced games cost money
>>3313006
Space Invaders is on it tho
>>3310807
Isn't this actually the biggest flop of retro video games?
>>3313002
Because there are hundreds of games for the 2600, that thing might have been made before E.T. became a meme or they might not have been able to get the licence to use it
>>3313008
Is Raiders of the Lost Ark on it?
Film licenses cost a lot of moolah
>>3310807
It's boring, but it isn't nearly the worst video game of all time.
It's nowhere near the worst but it is one of the earliest hyped game launches that turned out to be shit. Think of it as the Mighty No. 9 of its day. Some day, people might say that is the shittiest game of all time but we'll all know there were plenty that were worse, it's just that none of those had a big spotlight shining on them like E.T. or MN9 did.
>>3312976
Fucking Game Grumps.
Stupid cunts who would ignore tutorial messages, then get stuck in the tutorial area because they didn't know what to press. Fucking morons hated them so much.
JUST READ THE TUTORIALS AND EDIT IT OUT. Or do it in silly voices. Their retarded fans eat that shit up like fatties at a buffet.
Not even the worst 2600 game.
Pac-Kong is much worse
>>3310807
Absolutely not.
Especially regarding the incredibly short development time it is pretty good, has a full (if small) game world, TWO antagonist characters, coherent story and coherent mechanisms.
It gets dragged down by a simple bug that makes you fall into the holes over and over again, just like a byte changed and it is much much more enjoyable.
It is more of a symbol for Atari's retarded decisions. it#s not that it was BAD, it's not that it sold bad, but that they produced so many fucking carts- more then 2600 users then! Yes, they were sure the game would sell additional consoles.
Unsurprisingly that bit them in the arse.
>>3312526
Buggy? Have you ever actually used an Atari?
