|
Post by elektrolurch on Sept 29, 2014 12:15:14 GMT -5
Dude. E.T. is trash. You're delusional. Compare it to raiders of the lost ark. It is very similar, but raiders gets more love and less hate. Sure, E.T. has obvious faults, BUT it also has a lot of unique charme which I love. But anyway,looking at the millions of different crappy games and systems at the time and lack of quality control on the 2600, the crappy 5200 etc, I'd argue that E.T. was no significant factor to the crash........... The A7800 would have had a much better reputation if Atari didn't sit on it for years. It's clearly not anywhere near competitive to the NES, which it was going against commercially. Very true. I always say, the 7800 is a sign of would could have been, when it is seen in the context when it SHOULD have been released.
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Sept 29, 2014 12:26:17 GMT -5
I wouldn't say E.T. is a good game, but I think its poor quality tends to get over-exaggerated. I mean, it isn't even THE game that crashed the console industry... the crash was caused by dozens upon dozens of shitty games, not E.T. alone. E.T. is notable for being both high-profile and financially devastating for Atari and thus it because the figurehead for the console crash, but it was only one of the many, many, many straws that broke the camel's back. In terms of poor quality games, it isn't even the worst straw.
|
|
|
Post by Snarboo on Sept 29, 2014 12:31:28 GMT -5
I thought 2600 Pac-man was more responsible for Atari's fate than ET ever was?
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Sept 29, 2014 12:35:17 GMT -5
I thought 2600 Pac-man was more responsible for Atari's fate than ET ever was? It was a lot of things. Atari's biggest mistake was producing more copies of Pac-Man and ET than there were Atari 2600 consoles in existence. But the dire lack of quality control and the huge swamping of third-party titles from companies who, frankly, didn't have a goddamn clue what they were doing...that the most likely cause of the "crash."
|
|
|
Post by PooshhMao on Sept 29, 2014 12:42:02 GMT -5
I always say, the 7800 is a sign of would could have been, when it is seen in the context when it SHOULD have been released. Wikipedia says the machine was announced in 1984. The Famicom was already out for a year by then. So, it was pretty much DOA from the start. We probably never got to see what the machine was truly capable of (I'm interested in witnessing that 'infinite sprites' claim personally, sounds like some grade A bullshit), but at the very least it was clear that Atari was pretty clueless at that point.
|
|
|
Post by shelverton on Sept 29, 2014 13:00:19 GMT -5
A lot of people complain about the "charge"/waiting meter in Secret of Mana but I fail to see how it's any different from something like Chrono Trigger, except the battle takes place on the same screen as the exploring (well, Chroni Trigger actually does the same thing but it's a bit closer to a Final Fantasy game in terms of battles). So no, I don't see how Secret of Mana has slow and annoying battles. Maybe if you come in expecting Zelda or Ys... SoM has a pretty classic RPG battle system except it's presented in a different way.
|
|
|
Post by PooshhMao on Sept 29, 2014 13:04:59 GMT -5
I thought 2600 Pac-man was more responsible for Atari's fate than ET ever was? Not sure about this. Pac-Man for the A2600 is common as fuck, it must have sold an awful lot, despite how terrible it is.
|
|
|
Post by The Great Klaid on Sept 29, 2014 13:05:36 GMT -5
A lot of people complain about the "charge"/waiting meter in Secret of Mana but I fail to see how it's any different from something like Chrono Trigger, except the battle takes place on the same screen as the exploring (well, Chroni Trigger actually does the same thing but it's a bit closer to a Final Fantasy game in terms of battles). So no, I don't see how Secret of Mana has slow and annoying battles. Maybe if you come in expecting Zelda or Ys...Yes, this. Chrono Trigger didn't have enemies attack you in real time. SoM does. But, that's not what this thread is for. I derail enough threads somedays.
|
|
|
Post by PooshhMao on Sept 29, 2014 13:10:21 GMT -5
Pretty much every thread on these boards eventually derails into some variant of 'let's talk about things we love and hate about games', and I'm fine with that.
|
|
|
Post by moran on Sept 29, 2014 13:44:25 GMT -5
The other thing about Secret of Mana was that at the time of its release, we didn't go into it with those expectations. So I'd say a lot of its defenders are from that particular time frame and have a different appreciation for it. And as someone who loves the game, the weapon charge can get a little annoying once you get to the higher levels but its a small complaint in my eyes. I always say, the 7800 is a sign of would could have been, when it is seen in the context when it SHOULD have been released. Wikipedia says the machine was announced in 1984. The Famicom was already out for a year by then. So, it was pretty much DOA from the start. We probably never got to see what the machine was truly capable of (I'm interested in witnessing that 'infinite sprites' claim personally, sounds like some grade A bullshit), but at the very least it was clear that Atari was pretty clueless at that point. The Famicom was out in Japan in '83 and was relatively unknown in the US until it was test marketed in '85 and fully released in '86. So Atari did have some time to establish a foothold with the 7800 if they had managed it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Sept 29, 2014 13:47:42 GMT -5
I thought 2600 Pac-man was more responsible for Atari's fate than ET ever was? Ah, that's another game for this topic. I bought Atari 2600 Pac-Man back in the day, and I was totally satisfied with my purchase. I mean, it's a watered-down version of Pac-Man, but... it's also the 2600. The 2600 couldn't replicate the experience of the arcade. Just look at the 2600 port of Donkey Kong! I was used to 2600 games being the "poor man's versions" of arcade classics, and Pac-Man really didn't feel any different. The 2600 proved it could do better when subsequent Pac-Man games were released on it, but I never owned any of those. The original Pac-Man was my only experience with the series on the 2600, and for as ugly as it looked, it was still discernibly Pac-Man. And ultimately, that's all I cared about. -Tom
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Sept 29, 2014 13:51:41 GMT -5
I will defend Castlevania 64 and its semi-sequel expansion forever. Yes, it has the stupid bomb part. Yes, the controls are wonky as shit and the camera suffers from a terrible case of early 3D game awkwardness.
But aside from the stupid bomb level, the core game is great. It has great level design, excellent platforming, the whip-using character controls and fights like a Belmont-type character should. Beyond the one terible level and the technical issues is a quality action/platformer that to this day is far better than any other 3D Castlevania game. If Konami had continued to improve and iterate on the gameplay in Castlevania 64 instead of scrapping it and focusing entirely on metroidvanias, the Castlevania franchise would probably be in a better place today.
|
|
|
Post by Terrifying on Sept 29, 2014 14:04:17 GMT -5
I will always defend the greatness called Shenmue.
EDIT: Oh, and METROID II and Other M.
|
|
|
Post by PooshhMao on Sept 29, 2014 14:05:42 GMT -5
If Konami had continued to improve and iterate on the gameplay in Castlevania 64 instead of scrapping it and focusing entirely on metroidvanias, the Castlevania franchise would probably be in a better place today. Funny you mention this, because now I feel I must defend Konami's decision to go the metroidvania route with the series. I like the classic Castlevanias, but I much MUCH prefer the metroidvania ones. There's so much more to see and do, the exploration is engaging, the combat is so much more varied (but thankfully not too convoluted), the hunt for secrets and 100% completion so much more captivating than just slogging through a linear level with a boss at the end, with the same old poorly balanced subweapons every time. I had pretty much given up on Castlevania until I played Dawn of Sorrow. After that I played all the other GBA and DS titles, and SOTN.
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Sept 29, 2014 14:06:34 GMT -5
There are games I'd like to be able to defend, but I don't have the confidence to make a "winning" argument as far as they go.
I'd love to be able to defend the SaGa series. I just don't feel I have the biting rhetoric or acidic tongue to browbeat (or guilt, shame, or humiliate) somebody who's convinced that it's trash into liking it.
|
|