Another topic suggestion

[bill_loguidice]

I also think the 2600 versions of pacman and et are decent. Et no one took the time to learn how to play, it's surprisingly deep for a quickly made 2600 game. Pacman entertained me a lot as a child. It may not be arcade perfect but it was still fun to play.

Pac-Man is playable to be sure, but it doesn't feel like Pac-Man, and even Ms. Pac-Man on the 2600 proved that a much, much better job could have been done given more dev time. Certain Atari management was obviously egotistical enough to assume that licenses, be it Pac-Man or ET, would be enough to unleash any old crap on the public. Sometimes it is, but not when such products are so amazingly important in so many ways, particularly then, particularly for the platform.

Also, I find it hard to blame gamers for ET's failings. Sure, its awfulness and role in the crash have been greatly exaggerated over the years, but the pit mechanic is very touchy and very broken. A major frustrating gameplay element is tough for even stellar gameplay otherwise to overcome, let alone arguably mediocre gameplay otherwise.

[leathco]

yes pacman could have been done better, I just mentioned as a kid it entertained me. On it's own it's not a bad game, just not the pacman we know and love.

The pits in et never gave me trouble. Right before you flat out of one hold left or right on the controller ( opposite direction from the side you fell in ). You should be able to come out without any problem. I think most people let go right when they come out, which makes them fall back in.

Im not saying either game is exceptional, just that they get a bum rap for being horrible when there are much worse games on the 2600. Like Indiana jones. I could never figure it out as a kid. Foe the first two years I had it I thought you just used one control stick, not two. I never had a manual for the game so I had no clue.

I guess one mans crap is another treasure.

Pac-Man is playable to be sure, but it doesn't feel like Pac-Man, and even Ms. Pac-Man on the 2600 proved that a much, much better job could have been done given more dev time. Certain Atari management was obviously egotistical enough to assume that licenses, be it Pac-Man or ET, would be enough to unleash any old crap on the public. Sometimes it is, but not when such products are so amazingly important in so many ways, particularly then, particularly for the platform.

Also, I find it hard to blame gamers for ET's failings. Sure, its awfulness and role in the crash have been greatly exaggerated over the years, but the pit mechanic is very touchy and very broken. A major frustrating gameplay element is tough for even stellar gameplay otherwise to overcome, let alone arguably mediocre gameplay otherwise.

[bill_loguidice]

Exactly about the tastes thing, because I consider Raiders of the Lost Ark pretty good. It's a surprisingly sophisticated concept for the time, and it certainly hampered your appreciation not having a manual. That's different though then Pac-Man and ET being below average.

Anyway, it's tough to say what entertained us as kids meant it was any good. Activision's Laser Blast entertained me as a kid, but there's no denying it's repetitive and heavily reliant on patterns (to the point where the score is easy to roll over), meaning - to me anyway - it qualifies as not a good game.

[leathco]

I have odd tastes too, keep that in mind. I love Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy on the nes, though lots hate them cause of the required level grinding. But I also liked the universally hated mytic quest on the snes.

Exactly about the tastes thing, because I consider Raiders of the Lost Ark pretty good. It's a surprisingly sophisticated concept for the time, and it certainly hampered your appreciation not having a manual. That's different though then Pac-Man and ET being below average.

Anyway, it's tough to say what entertained us as kids meant it was any good. Activision's Laser Blast entertained me as a kid, but there's no denying it's repetitive and heavily reliant on patterns (to the point where the score is easy to roll over), meaning - to me anyway - it qualifies as not a good game.

[bill_loguidice]

Indeed, and I consider most Eastern console RPGs far inferior to classic Western computer RPGs. The original Final Fantasy's random battles are maddening and certainly a broken game mechanic for my money. Otherwise, it was a solid clone of classic computer RPGs.

I do think though - outside of personal preference - good or bad gameplay mechanics are fairly universal concepts.

[Duke.Togo]

I think some game mechanics are just preferred by different players. I've always been a JRPG fan, grinding and random encounters included. Sometimes I think RPG isn't exactly the right label for these games, as there isn't much role-playing to be had. They are a tightly controlled storyline, and I value the level grind mechanic as it allows you to progress through the story even with lack of skill. Boss too tough, no problem, grind some more and you're done. By the end of the game your characters have incredible powers, which is fantastic becuase you usually end up killing a god or two.

WRPGs on the other hand tend to give that open ended role playing experience, and sometimes they offer so much freedom as to leave me scratching my head as to what the heck I should do, or if I should even try to fight that thing in the distance. A lot of people like these, but it's just not generally for me.

Oh, and after listening to the latest roundup, I liked Donkey Kong on the VCS. Raiders was good too. I never actaully beat it, although I did understand the steps required to do so eventually. Very neat concept for the time!