News:

FOR INFORMATION ON DONATIONS, AND HOW TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE GAME, PLEASE VIEW THE FOLLOWING TOPIC: http://stick-online.com/boards/index.php?topic=2.0

Main Menu

Worst Video Game Ever

Started by Mystery, August 05, 2010, 07:29:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mystery

Quote from: Looperpuck on August 09, 2010, 05:49:34 PM
I kinda just watched it with no sound, so I probably don't get alot of things :p, But I'm sure scotty would like it.

~Looperpuck
Yeah, Scotty probably would. :P That's the thing, it's like a softcore porn slideshow, not an actual video game.
AKA Paradox/EnragedDeity/Occurrence.
Quote from: Medgar Evers
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

ARTgames

Quote from: Mystery on August 09, 2010, 05:43:58 PM
That's because of the extreme limitations the Atari 2600 had. You can't really make a good game on it, but still, ET was probably the worst. I guarantee you, Plumbers Don't Wear Ties is infinitely worse.

All im trying to defend here is just because the 2600 did not have the best hardware does not make is so you cant have fun with the system. You say that but most of the other movie based games like spider man, star wars, Indiana Jones, you have some concept of whats going on. Here all you tell is that your ET. And I have played fun games on the 2600 like missile command and pitfall and video Olympics that I think were good.  I'm not sure if you had personal experience with the 2600 but you should try.

Now why ET is not the worst for me is that it did not make me mad or frustrated when I played it. I just did not know what was going at all. :P

Mystery

Quote from: ARTgames on August 09, 2010, 06:14:18 PM
Quote from: Mystery on August 09, 2010, 05:43:58 PM
That's because of the extreme limitations the Atari 2600 had. You can't really make a good game on it, but still, ET was probably the worst. I guarantee you, Plumbers Don't Wear Ties is infinitely worse.

All im trying to defend here is just because the 2600 did not have the best hardware does not make is so you cant have fun with the system. You say that but most of the other movie based games like spider man, star wars, Indiana Jones, you have some concept of whats going on. Here all you tell is that your ET. And I have played fun games on the 2600 like missile command and pitfall and video Olympics that I think were good.  I'm not sure if you had personal experience with the 2600 but you should try.

Now why ET is not the worst for me is that it did not make me mad or frustrated when I played it. I just did not know what was going at all. :P
I don't really have much experience with it, but I do have some. In one of the Indiana Jones games(I forget which), you have no idea what you're supposed to do, and what you're supposed to do is so convoluted that with no directions, it's almost impossible to beat...and the graphics don't help. Same thing in ET, except much, much worse.
AKA Paradox/EnragedDeity/Occurrence.
Quote from: Medgar Evers
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

ARTgames

#18
Its fine if you don't agree with me on how I fell about ET's being the worst game or not. I just don't feel you should blame the system limitations on it being a bad game when there are good examples of fun games on the system. I feel it was the developers fault. We might disagree here and that's fine.

Also I would like to bring up super man 64. That game does not look too fun. I have never played it but when people bring up ET they also bring up that game.

Lingus

Quote from: Mystery on August 09, 2010, 06:21:38 PMIn one of the Indiana Jones games(I forget which), you have no idea what you're supposed to do, and what you're supposed to do is so convoluted that with no directions, it's almost impossible to beat...and the graphics don't help. Same thing in ET, except much, much worse.
I have to agree with Art here. What it seems like you're talking about is poor game design. Just because the system is limited doesn't mean they had to make a game that didn't make any sense or was impossible to figure out.

T-Rok

Quote from: ARTgames on August 09, 2010, 07:16:14 PM
Its fine if you don't agree with me on how I fell about ET's being the worst game or not. I just don't feel you should blame the system limitations on it being a bad game when there are good examples of fun games on the system. I feel it was the developers fault. We might disagree here and that's fine.

Also I would like to bring up super man 64. That game does not look too fun. I have never played it but when people bring up ET they also bring up that game.

Actually, the Super Man on Xbox 360 is fail. It has original playstation quality graphics.

Jake

Quote from: T-Rok on August 09, 2010, 09:00:57 PM
Actually, the Super Man on Xbox 360 is fail. It has original playstation quality graphics.
Your kidding right? That's a pretty big exaggeration.

T-Rok

I'm not exaggerating. I played it. xD

Mystery

Quote from: T-Rok on August 10, 2010, 04:32:27 AM
I'm not exaggerating. I played it. xD
If you think THAT Superman game is bad, try Superman 64.

Quote from: Lingus on August 09, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
Quote from: Mystery on August 09, 2010, 06:21:38 PMIn one of the Indiana Jones games(I forget which), you have no idea what you're supposed to do, and what you're supposed to do is so convoluted that with no directions, it's almost impossible to beat...and the graphics don't help. Same thing in ET, except much, much worse.
I have to agree with Art here. What it seems like you're talking about is poor game design. Just because the system is limited doesn't mean they had to make a game that didn't make any sense or was impossible to figure out.
It may be poor game design, and I do accept the graphical limitations of the system, but the graphics still hinder you because you can't tell what ANYTHING is.
AKA Paradox/EnragedDeity/Occurrence.
Quote from: Medgar Evers
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

Lingus

Quote from: Mystery on August 17, 2010, 03:55:20 PM
Quote from: Lingus on August 09, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
Quote from: Mystery on August 09, 2010, 06:21:38 PMIn one of the Indiana Jones games(I forget which), you have no idea what you're supposed to do, and what you're supposed to do is so convoluted that with no directions, it's almost impossible to beat...and the graphics don't help. Same thing in ET, except much, much worse.
I have to agree with Art here. What it seems like you're talking about is poor game design. Just because the system is limited doesn't mean they had to make a game that didn't make any sense or was impossible to figure out.
It may be poor game design, and I do accept the graphical limitations of the system, but the graphics still hinder you because you can't tell what ANYTHING is.
Again, poor art direction.

I have to say, with extreme limitations I have seen some really good games. It seems like what happens is if you try to get too complicated within those limitations, you end up with a poor product. It's always the really simple games that tend to be really fun.

Mystery

Quote from: Lingus on August 17, 2010, 04:01:58 PM
Quote from: Mystery on August 17, 2010, 03:55:20 PM
Quote from: Lingus on August 09, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
Quote from: Mystery on August 09, 2010, 06:21:38 PMIn one of the Indiana Jones games(I forget which), you have no idea what you're supposed to do, and what you're supposed to do is so convoluted that with no directions, it's almost impossible to beat...and the graphics don't help. Same thing in ET, except much, much worse.
I have to agree with Art here. What it seems like you're talking about is poor game design. Just because the system is limited doesn't mean they had to make a game that didn't make any sense or was impossible to figure out.
It may be poor game design, and I do accept the graphical limitations of the system, but the graphics still hinder you because you can't tell what ANYTHING is.
Again, poor art direction.

I have to say, with extreme limitations I have seen some really good games. It seems like what happens is if you try to get too complicated within those limitations, you end up with a poor product. It's always the really simple games that tend to be really fun.
Again, I agree with you, but the garbled graphics in ET(and a few other Atari games) are different. Pits look like ggray diamonds, the spaceship and its parts look anything but, and ET himself barely looks like himself. There are some VERY good limited-graphic games, but ET is NOT one of them. That is my point.
AKA Paradox/EnragedDeity/Occurrence.
Quote from: Medgar Evers
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

Lingus

Right, which was my point. It sounded like you were saying that game was bad simply because it was on the Atari 2600, which is probably not the case. You can blame poor art direction and game design, but not the limitations of the system. At least in my opinion.

T-Rok

Quote from: Mystery on August 17, 2010, 03:55:20 PM
Quote from: T-Rok on August 10, 2010, 04:32:27 AM
I'm not exaggerating. I played it. xD
If you think THAT Superman game is bad, try Superman 64.

Quote from: Lingus on August 09, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
Quote from: Mystery on August 09, 2010, 06:21:38 PMIn one of the Indiana Jones games(I forget which), you have no idea what you're supposed to do, and what you're supposed to do is so convoluted that with no directions, it's almost impossible to beat...and the graphics don't help. Same thing in ET, except much, much worse.
I have to agree with Art here. What it seems like you're talking about is poor game design. Just because the system is limited doesn't mean they had to make a game that didn't make any sense or was impossible to figure out.
It may be poor game design, and I do accept the graphical limitations of the system, but the graphics still hinder you because you can't tell what ANYTHING is.

This one was Superman 64. They just ported it. lol