ET the Extraterrestrial isn't such a bad game after all.

[Captain Riker]

After you fix it that is.

Many will recall the legend that was E.T. The Extraterrestrial for the defunct Atari 2600. Widely considered the worst video game in history. Legend has it that the game was so bad that Atari took all unsold cartridges and buried them in the desert of New Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_E ... video_game)

Well, some enterprising enthusiasts felt the game was salvageable and set out to fix it. This is their story:
http://www.neocomputer.org/projects/et/

I figure some here might enjoy the story.

 

[gsb445]

That was an interesting read. Thanks.

 

[Chord]

Very interesting.

I remember playing that when it came out and I agree with the article. You have to read the manual to beat the game.

 

[Jackass JoeJoe]

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, huh?

To everyone that's not a sheep, E.T. is not the worst 2600 game by any means. Go look at "3-D Tic Tac Toe" for one of numerous examples. Based on my 100 cartridge collection, I'd say 10% or less of the games were good.

It's the #5 best selling 2600 game of all time and sold over a million units.

Unlike most Atari games, you cannot play it without reading the instructions. You'd think a game system with one stick and one button couldn't have any complexity, but this was one of the first games in history to have an "action" button that was context sensitive.

etc etc etc

 

[Keen]

Chord[/url]":3mzom52x]You have to read the manual to beat the game.

Umm, this is pretty common for old games. The rise of the in-game tutorial is relatively recent.

 

[Chord]

Chord[/url]":2b4013fs]You have to read the manual to beat the game.

Umm, this is pretty common for old games. The rise of the in-game tutorial is relatively recent.

many of the Atari age games did not require a manual.

Now if by old you are referring to NES era games...Getta outta my yard

 

[Psion]

Yeah, "isn't a bad game after you fix all the bad parts," doesn't really sell me that ET isn't a bad game.

I mean, it's cool that so much effort has gone into trying to make this not awful now, but as-released, ET deserved all the hate it got. The author of that page is kinda duplicitous about that. The "oh well children just weren't ready for such an advanced game" line made me eyeroll pretty hard.

 

[Yagisama]

It's true those. Those darn kids just weren't ready for it.

 

[Psion]

Whatever, I beat Battletoads _eventually. Don't try and tell me I wasn't ready!

Mostly, though, I do think this is a pretty cool thing for all the code hacking it does and if you just filter out the author's editorializing, nice read, Captain Riker!

like the one about pit detection. "ET's detection is pixel perfect! If a single pixel touches the pit, you fall in! all these complaints about it being buggy are wrong!"

This is the kind of answer a sophomore CS major would give, because they do not understand what user experience is, and why it is an invaluable part of everything related to software (and then some). But the programming logic, they exclaim! It is perfect!

It is irrelevant. It neglects the fact that as human beings, we do not care. We care whether it works for us, the human beings playing the game. And that's exactly the right priority: ET the game doesn't really care if its pit detection is pixel-perfect, but a player certainly cares if it's stupid as shit or not -- regardless of what goes on behind the scenes.

And then they go and make - basically - that exact same argument by comparing it to Legend of Zelda. But that's still not, somehow, ET being bad, it's just misunderstood. psyduck-gif-here.

anyway, my point is, skip all that shit. The ROM debugging and kernel hacking part on how they fixed it? Totally worth reading.

 

[Snuble]

I thought Journey was worse than ET. But ET was pretty bad.

 

[Hinton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jrsKB4g8s0

I think Strawberry Shortcake has to be the worst game ever. A game that didn't even work would be better, because at least it wouldn't go the extra mile of making an effort to add levels of insulting suck.

 

[HexRei]

My cousin had ET on his Atari and it was pretty bad. Actually "incomprehensible" is a better word.

 

[Captain Riker]

Chord[/url]":10wbwiuh]You have to read the manual to beat the game.

Umm, this is pretty common for old games. The rise of the in-game tutorial is relatively recent.

many of the Atari age games did not require a manual.

Now if by old you are referring to NES era games...Getta outta my yard

There were a few other 2600 games that required you to read the manual and then you still needed to figure out what the heck to do. The Raiders of the Lost Ark game took forever to finish for that reason. It made the game fun, but it could have been frustrating for many others. It wasn't just another twitch game. When my sister figured out how to get into the tomb finally, you would have thought we had won the lottery. I guess ET worked similarly to raiders since it also had a context sensitive fire button feature.

While I haven't played ET, I've played plenty if bad 2600 games, and 10% is a high percentage for good ones.

 

[Chord]

I thought Journey was worse than ET. But ET was pretty bad.

Journey was really bad. I beat ET, I didn't think it was that bad. Took awhile to get used to though.

 

[Chord]

Chord[/url]":rgx9e4jm]You have to read the manual to beat the game.

Umm, this is pretty common for old games. The rise of the in-game tutorial is relatively recent.

many of the Atari age games did not require a manual.

Now if by old you are referring to NES era games...Getta outta my yard

There were a few other 2600 games that required you to read the manual and then you still needed to figure out what the heck to do. The Raiders of the Lost Ark game took forever to finish for that reason. It made the game fun, but it could have been frustrating for many others. It wasn't just another twitch game. When my sister figured out how to get into the tomb finally, you would have thought we had won the lottery. I guess ET worked similarly to raiders since it also had a context sensitive fire button feature.

While I haven't played ET, I've played plenty if bad 2600 games, and 10% is a high percentage for good ones.

Yeah that game needed a manual as well. Also those ones that were part of the comic book contest. I can't remember their names off the top of my head

 

[Ulf]

Unlike most Atari games, you cannot play it without reading the instructions. You'd think a game system with one stick and one button couldn't have any complexity, but this was one of the first games in history to have an "action" button that was context sensitive.

Most games needed a manual.

Would you really know that mode #8 of Asteroids for the Atari 2600 was a fast game that started you with zero lives and had hyperspace? Compared to say, mode #46 which was a slow game, two player, gave you 20 lives to start and had shields instead of hyperspace?

 

[Shudder]

I thought Journey was worse than ET. But ET was pretty bad.

I didn't mind Journey because of the music and the Kool-Aid man. But other than that it was pretty bad.

 

[Papaspider]

OT but I still maintain that Pac-Man is the worst Atari 2600 game.

And I've played a lot of Atari 2600 games.

 

[Mister E. Meat]

OT but I still maintain that Pac-Man is the worst Atari 2600 game.

And I've played a lot of Atari 2600 games.

Why? It looked just like the arcade!
Arcade:

Spoiler

Atari:

Spoiler

 

[Ulf]

That picture of the 2600 Pac Man really doesn't do it justice - Pac Man can only face left and right and the amount of flickering is extremely painful.

 

[Keen]

Ulf[/url]":zcinyole]Pac Man can only face left and right

So when moving vertically, he's still facing left/right? Wow.

 

[Doggus]

That picture of the 2600 Pac Man really doesn't do it justice - Pac Man can only face left and right and the amount of flickering is extremely painful.

I also tried to find a gif of Pac Man opening and closing his mouth, but I couldn't. Be thankful.

 

[Toxic Ned]

Chord[/url]":1p658xz9]You have to read the manual to beat the game.

Umm, this is pretty common for old games. The rise of the in-game tutorial is relatively recent.

many of the Atari age games did not require a manual.

Now if by old you are referring to NES era games...Getta outta my yard

There were a few other 2600 games that required you to read the manual and then you still needed to figure out what the heck to do. The Raiders of the Lost Ark game took forever to finish for that reason. It made the game fun, but it could have been frustrating for many others. It wasn't just another twitch game. When my sister figured out how to get into the tomb finally, you would have thought we had won the lottery. I guess ET worked similarly to raiders since it also had a context sensitive fire button feature.

While I haven't played ET, I've played plenty if bad 2600 games, and 10% is a high percentage for good ones.

Yeah that game needed a manual as well. Also those ones that were part of the comic book contest. I can't remember their names off the top of my head

The Swordquest games. Swordquest: Earthworld and Swordquest: Fireworld. God, I hated those games and the copies I had didn't come with any documentation.

 

[HexRei]

wow i was wondering exactly how you could fuck up pac man... thats how.

 

[AnakinOU]

Bah. ET was just fine. I beat it, repeatedly, when I was a kid. Playing on a 7" black-and-white TV. Yeah, I probably read the manual, but what's wrong with reading?

Speaking of which, y'all need to read Racing the Beam. A great little book describing the technical wizardry behind (for example) the flickering ghosts in PacMan.

 

[Blue Adept]

Ms Pac Man was supposed to be much better. I think I remember a story that a ROM hacker updated the Ms Pac Man ROM in order to create a more authentic Pac Man for 2600.

 

[Mister E. Meat]

wow i was wondering exactly how you could fuck up pac man... thats how.

Don't ruin the memories of 6 year old me. It was still fun. Sort of.

And ET was OK. I remember playing it and I think beating it.

IMO, the best was Atari football.

Spoiler

3 on 3 is how the pros do it.

 

[Ulf]

Ms Pac Man was supposed to be much better. I think I remember a story that a ROM hacker updated the Ms Pac Man ROM in order to create a more authentic Pac Man for 2600.

Several, actually, look here.

Basically, the programmer had limited time and a four kilobyte cartridge size. An increase of either would have lead to a much better version.

 

[Chord]

The Swordquest games. Swordquest: Earthworld and Swordquest: Fireworld. God, I hated those games and the copies I had didn't come with any documentation.

Yeah those. Very interesting story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordquest

 

[akirayojimbo]

I don't remember playing any bad games on the Atari 2600. I had to be about 6 when playing most of those games and I remember just being delighted that I could make things happen on the screen. Every game was a puzzle to be unraveled and I remember getting a lot of satisfaction when the mental tumblers in my mind would slide into place and I was able to figure a game out, even the "bad" ones.

I don't think it was until the NES when I figured out that yes, some games just suck and aren't worth the time.

 

[Blacken00100]

like the one about pit detection. "ET's detection is pixel perfect! If a single pixel touches the pit, you fall in! all these complaints about it being buggy are wrong!"

This is the kind of answer a sophomore CS major would give, because they do not understand what user experience is, and why it is an invaluable part of everything related to software (and then some). But the programming logic, they exclaim! It is perfect!

It is irrelevant. It neglects the fact that as human beings, we do not care. We care whether it works for us, the human beings playing the game. And that's exactly the right priority: ET the game doesn't really care if its pit detection is pixel-perfect, but a player certainly cares if it's stupid as shit or not -- regardless of what goes on behind the scenes.

I've done a little hacking on the 2600, and I think it bears keeping in mind that it was 1982, and stuff like what the author did (clearing the collision latches between scanlines) largely originates in later games on later Atari (and probably other) systems. There are legitimate beefs with the game, but faulting them for not inventing nonlinear solutions to what are fairly tough engineering problems is a little harsh. It's kind of like the Seinfeld effect: that which came before Seinfeld looks dated because everything after it copied all Seinfeld's tricks, you know?

Even without his fixes, if you read the manual it really is not a bad game. The characterization of the game as being somewhat ahead of its time isn't an unreasonable one.

 

[Blue Adept]

Several, actually, look here.

Thanks, the look at the multiple 2600 ROM hacks of Pacman was very interesting.

The space limitations at the time were just crazy.

 

[krimhorn]

I don't remember playing any bad games on the Atari 2600. I had to be about 6 when playing most of those games and I remember just being delighted that I could make things happen on the screen. Every game was a puzzle to be unraveled and I remember getting a lot of satisfaction when the mental tumblers in my mind would slide into place and I was able to figure a game out, even the "bad" ones.

I don't think it was until the NES when I figured out that yes, some games just suck and aren't worth the time.

Yep. Even the games that I never could manage to figure out (Ghostbusters) I had a blast with. Video games were too new, and I was frankly, too young, to look with a critical eye at many of them. Hell, I never even realized that Pac-Man on the 2600 was so different from the arcade version until years after my parents gave their 2600 to Goodwill.

 

[Captain Riker]

Ms Pac Man was supposed to be much better. I think I remember a story that a ROM hacker updated the Ms Pac Man ROM in order to create a more authentic Pac Man for 2600.

Several, actually, look here.

Basically, the programmer had limited time and a four kilobyte cartridge size. An increase of either would have lead to a much better version.

The 4k version made with enough time looked amazing. It's a shame Atari rushed it. It seems like their MO.

Still, I played the hell out of the crappy 2600 version.

 

[Blue Adept]

Yeah, there is reason to be down on Pac-man for 2600, but I'm not. For me, Atari 2600 comes down to Space Invaders, Combat, Pitfall - and Pac-man.

 

[Psion]

but faulting them for not inventing nonlinear solutions to what are fairly tough engineering problems is a little harsh.

No, that's my point, I'm not. The code is opaque to the user who hated it in 1982 and it's opaque to approximately everyone who put it in the "this game sucks" pile. Trying to argue the game isn't bad on an internal code level ("it's not buggy, it's just misunderstood!") is apples and oranges to user experience which is most certainly not opaque to the player.

so I don't fault the ET designers for not creating some sweet solution to a tough engineering problem, I blame bad design getting them in a situation where they had to. Or in this case, didn't, and got ridiculed for it. Rushed game development: bad.

Also, in fairness, a lot of the "god ET is terrible" stuff relates to things outside the game itself; contextual stuff like overspending to even get ET the game, the terribly tiny development cycle, the landfill story, Atari and the video game market imploding in 1983/1984 etc, etc. That's outside the framework of this entire article, but relevant to why it has such a bad rep.