Lester! I'm going to try to counter your defenses of awful video games. Excuse me if I come across as arrogant or so,
I'm not trying to be as much as just expressing my opinion, and I know my opinion isn't more "true" than yours.
4. E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial (Atari 2600)
We know it's legendary awfulness
i love ET. it puts all the important aspects of the movie into an incredibly tiny package. the game is challenging, but yet easy to beat. the only annoying thing are the pitfalls everywhere, which can be avoided once you learn the maps. really, i don't see what the bid deal is.
The important aspects of running away from the authorities and getting to the spaceship are the only similarities to the movie, the rest you are imagining. I don't think ET never assembled a telephone in the movie, and he didn't fall into any pits and extended his neck to fly out. (I can be wrong on this, I haven't seen the movie in years) How you can call an annoying game challenging is interesting to me...
Dragon's Lair Arcade
Unplayable. A guessing game.
you have to remember when it was released that it attempted to do something that had not been done before. its a game of memorization. are you saying memorization isn't a valid gaming tool? not liking the game mechanics doesn't make it unplayable. if it was so unplayable i hardly feel that it would have been ported to so many systems (dos, mac, cd-rom, dvd, 3d0, gbc, ps3, wii, dsi, android, etc).
I don't think the excuse of "they were trying something new
and bold" excuses a bad game. I'd say memorization is not
in fact a valid gaming tool except for like the card minigame in Super Mario 3. Dragon's Lair is unplayable for me too, except for the first screen there's no clues as to what to do, unlike the sequel. It feels very very random.
Now trial and error is a valid gaming tool, but did they really have to make it this annoying? :P
And it's been ported to so many systems because it's part of gaming history, and the cartoon graphics still enthrall people. Gameplay is not
at the forefront at least.
Dragon's Lair (NES)
Awfull game and hard as possible, I couldn't get past the first screen.
its a fairly challenging game but its not horribly bad. i wouldn't say its awful by any means. its not cheetahmen II for example.
Now this game IS horrible. I think Cheetahmen II is a lot better, I mean Cheetahmen doesn't have one hit kills, Cheetahmen doesn't have as slow controls...
Dragon's Lair on NES could have been decent if the controls
weren't so bad. And again, challenging is not quite the word I would choose.
Adventure (Atari 2600)
Can't get a more boring of an adventure than this.
what are you comparing it to? adventure is a classic example of a simple adventure game done right. its so extremely basic yet it offers weapons, hidden objects, puzzles, enemies, and even the 1st easter egg.
there is even a great homebrew sequel of it for the 5200.
Here I agree with you Lester, this was made in 1980 and
they did what they could. You have to use your imagination
a fair bit. And it's certainly not as broken/annoying as ET
or Dragon's Lair. I suppose it's a bit boring, but to each
is own, or something.
Milon's Secret Castle (NES)
Way too difficult and play control needs improvement.
milon's secret castle is full of secrets. the core of the gameplay is taking the time to discover secrets. the rest is understanding where to go next. all-in-all it isn't an extremely long game, perhaps you should give it another play? its like most games of that era, they weren't polished multi-million dollar games made by teams of 200 with credits that scroll for 15 minutes. you have to give them some leeway for their minor flaws.
Here I also kind of agree. If you play Milon with just you
and the controller, it's a bad game. But if you play with a strategy guide, it's a good game. Now they shouldn't force
you to use one like they did with basing everything around
secrets, but if you do have one it's a good game.
Zelda 2 rip off.
ok, so character sprites and movements resemble zelda II. but how can you call it a zelda 2 rip off? it is nothing like zelda 2. its just another side scrolling adventure game. you could list any number of games with similar styles of play and call them zelda 2 ripoffs by those standards. with that said, i rather enjoy rambo. i own it on cart and have beat it countless times over the years. it isn't the best rambo title ever released but its still a great adventure game with plenty of exploration.
Except the fact that Rambo doesn't have an overworld, I do think it qualifyes as a Zelda II ripoff, like Sony All-stars qualifies as a Smash Bros ripoff, even though they do some thing different. The experience system, the dark areas needing a lantern, the numbers when you kill enemies(exp system at work) And no it's not just another sidesrolling adventure game. It's not like Contra, not like Rush n Attack, not like Astyanax, not like Megaman, etc.
Now, I'd like to add one game for you to defend:
Superman 64. It would be interesting! Also, what games don't you like? Or was that in this thread already..?