[game_preservation] Worst game ever made

[Martin Goldberg]

Jim -

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:

> ET has an incredibly bad rap.


A lot of it for good reason though.  I certainly agree though that a
lot of the modern reviews just jump on the bandwagon.

However, the game also has the unique position of also being the final
straw in Atari's self-destructive production and distribution
processes, and the issues of Warner and Atari's dual management.


>Howard Scott Warshaw was given six weeks --

> SIX WEEKS -- from 0% to 100% completion to get the game finished in time for

> the xmas season.


Yes, I can certainly sympathize with that.  I was in a similar
position this past summer recoding (porting) 8 of their games for them
from scratch in the same amount of time.


> The game has no bugs and clearly-defined gameplay.


The latter is certainly not the case.  There's a reason they had to
include special instructions via mail-in and later pack-in.
Contemporary reviews of the time lambasted the difficulty of
understanding and doing the game play.
There's also a reason why Ray Kassar stated that about 3.5 million out
of the 4 million produced were returned, why it performed poorly in
focus groups, and why internally it was known it would perform poorly
before it was even released.


>This

> is the same person who gave us the Raiders of the Lost Ark game for 2600

> (also of significant historical context) as well as the

> built-for-the-technics-of-the-system Yar's Revenge.  E.T. was not a stellar

> game, but I hate to see it bashed.  There aren't many people who could

> create a finished 2600 game in six weeks.


You have to separate the two.  Expressing distaste for a game crammed
in to six weeks and not turning out that great (even by his own
admission) is not cutting down Howard or his previous accomplishments.


Marty