SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Sep 13 2008 03:41 am

Of course M3GA MAN beat E.T., yeah right, the only thing you beat was the dick of the guy on the top of that pyramid of yours, ewwww, ok that was gay, my bad.

My brother got the game new, granted he is 13 years my senior at 41, but he hated it, it wasn't as bad as they said, but it wasn't good either. Another game that reminds me of it that I had the for the 2600 was Raiders of the Lost Ark, that fucking thing was fall in a damn pit, die, repeat. I mean I would get like maybe 1/2 way through and then this one pit, always fell in, no way not to, and worst of all, it was set that everything looked like ground level, like a retarded over head view of sorts, to fall in said pit, all you did was walk to close to the bottom of the screen, no indication of a pit, and then you fell like a jack ass, and died.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 04:02 am

Thank you all for turning what could have been a somewhat mildly entertaining discussion into a page long shitfest about some retarded loser on a forum.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 04:23 am

Of course M3GA MAN loves E.T., only if E.T. stands for eating testicles.

Yeah, I went there.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 04:44 am

sidewaydriver wrote:

Of course M3GA MAN loves E.T., only if E.T. stands for eating testicles.

Yeah, I went there.

And, apparently, so did he...

Posted: Sep 13 2008 10:34 am

Back on topic!

I never played E.T., or any Atari games on the various Atari consoles, my first exposure to consoles was the good old NES. I've played a few 100 in 1 bootleg carts that had Atari games on them and later a few of those Namco Arcade Classics discs, and honestly I don't see what's so great about these games. Usually No music, incomprehensible sprites, no fun imo. Keep in mind I'm not crapping on classics like breakout, pong, pac-man etc, those I can see the entertainment value, but the rest I'm not very interested in playing. I do like to learn about the history of video games though.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 11:41 am

I always found 2600 games fun for there simplicity Razz

Posted: Sep 13 2008 11:55 am

There's no simplicity to Atari. Just the same levels repeating over and over and over again and your only goal is to beat the high-score that gets erased anyway.

I prefer games on the Atari 800. You know, the computer? The one that 2600 is a retarded twin of?

Posted: Sep 13 2008 12:25 pm

Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic, guys. Very Happy

Anyway, I think I'm figuring out the game. I don't think the pits are really random, as many people say they are. As far as I'm concerned, in every screen in the game (with the exception of where you start off), the dark green areas are the pits. In fact, if you can ever get the question mark command on your screen and press the button, a little colorful brick would show up in one of the pits, indicating the location of a telephone piece.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 01:30 pm

In retrospect, it doesn't seem like it should be that hard to beat. But I just really haven't played it that much since I got my NES for my birthday in '88. So I've really only played it like a handful of times since I turned 8 years old. My atari is at my parent's house. Maybe next time I'm there, I'll play it.

On side note, if you are looking for old 2600 games, try Solaris. It was one of my favorite 2600 games I ever played. Its a good looking game considering the system. Its also pretty fun.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 03:17 pm

Personally, I thought the Pac-Man port was much worse then E.T. then again my first system was NES, and I never owned a real Atari 2600 so I had to play the fake one on my laptop instead to play these games. E.T. mostly only gets flak for starting the video game depression and nothing else besides getting extremely repetitive.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 04:10 pm

For most people who didn't have to start out with a 2600, the games are going to completely suck. I've had a 2600 my whole life. So for me, the games were at one time fun. So its easy for me to go back to them (for the most part).

Maybe this is why things like Hi-Def aren't as important to me. Because I was raised on 3 channels (on a good day) that didn't always come in real clear. So I can look at stuff with less than steller quality and think it could be worse. For some kids today, digital cable is their "3 channels". I think this is why I like the new stuff, but I'm also very content with how things are currently and were in the past.

Getting Hi-Def will never be as big of a deal to me as when we first got cable. Same thing goes with video games or anything else, really.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 04:50 pm

i never minded the atari myself. i never played ET myself, and i have no desire to.

i used to play othello on it, and this one circus game where you were on a seesaw of sorts and you had to catch your partner, and then he would launch you up and had to catch you and so on and so forth.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 05:09 pm

I remember playing that circus game.

Posted: Sep 13 2008 05:24 pm

I thought Popeye was the shit, then I realized it only had 3 levels. Sad

Posted: Sep 13 2008 06:12 pm

Ky-Guy wrote:

Seriously, that thing is ugly and it scares my sister.

What are you talking about? I'd tap that. This Is A Joke

Posted: Sep 13 2008 08:17 pm

scamrock wrote:

For most people who didn't have to start out with a 2600, the games are going to completely suck. I've had a 2600 my whole life. So for me, the games were at one time fun. So its easy for me to go back to them (for the most part).

Maybe this is why things like Hi-Def aren't as important to me. Because I was raised on 3 channels (on a good day) that didn't always come in real clear. So I can look at stuff with less than steller quality and think it could be worse. For some kids today, digital cable is their "3 channels". I think this is why I like the new stuff, but I'm also very content with how things are currently and were in the past.

Getting Hi-Def will never be as big of a deal to me as when we first got cable. Same thing goes with video games or anything else, really.

For me, my first video game system was also an Atari 2600, but that's only because it's my Dad's (I was born in 1987) and the first game I remember was that Pac-Man port.

We also used to have a bunch of Atari games, too. Among them Warlords, Frogger, Space Invaders, Atlantis and Donkey Kong. We had a bunch more, too, but we lost most of them for some unknown reason. Although, I recovered a few of them, namely Atlantis. In recent years, I also bought some games: Ms. Pac-Man, Pole Position, The Empire Strikes Back and, of course, E.T.

And I could care less about graphics in video games myself. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the video game industry had some sort of "New Retro" movement, where they would produce video games in lower-resolution graphics instead of "So-Clear-And-Amazing-That-I-Can-See-Every-Strand-Of-Hair-On-That-Person's-Ass" graphics. Neutral

Posted: Sep 13 2008 08:20 pm

Cam-win wrote:

Ky-Guy wrote:

Seriously, that thing is ugly and it scares my sister.

What are you talking about? I'd tap that. This Is A Joke

What's funny is that my older is really scared of that thing. It really creeps the hell out of her. I think a scene in that movie kind of made her scared of that ugly-ass thing.

I honestly could care less about that thing myself. I remember when some fast-food restaurant (McDonald's, I think) gave out Christmas toys one year, and two of them were E.T. and Sonic the Hedgehog. I wanted the Sonic toy, but I got the E.T. one. I'm not sure if I got the Sonic one later on or not, but I sure was disappointed that day.

Edit: Disregard part of that paragraph. I don't think it was a Christmas promotion, but a McDonald's 15th Anniversary thing of some sort, maybe the 15th Anniversary of the Happy Meal. Anyway, here's a YouTube video of that ad.

Posted: Sep 14 2008 04:46 am

Ky-Guy wrote:

And I could care less about graphics in video games myself. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the video game industry had some sort of "New Retro" movement, where they would produce video games in lower-resolution graphics instead of "So-Clear-And-Amazing-That-I-Can-See-Every-Strand-Of-Hair-On-That-Person's-Ass" graphics. Neutral

Starting with Megaman 9, we might see something like this.

Posted: Sep 14 2008 05:04 am

Megaman shaves his ass. Well, Roll does it for him but you know what I mean.

Posted: Sep 14 2008 03:03 pm

Granted, Howard Scott Warshaw had maybe 2 weeks to program this game. If it had been an NES game, maybe it could have been like a boy and a blob thing.

Still - a worthless POS.

Posted: Sep 14 2008 04:10 pm

You know, before this post, I always thought that POS meant "Point of sale". It didn't make much sense, though.

Posted: Sep 14 2008 05:39 pm

LOL. I was just asking myself, what does POS mean and then I thought Point of Sale Razz

Posted: Sep 14 2008 05:52 pm

Nekkoru wrote:

Ky-Guy wrote:

And I could care less about graphics in video games myself. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the video game industry had some sort of "New Retro" movement, where they would produce video games in lower-resolution graphics instead of "So-Clear-And-Amazing-That-I-Can-See-Every-Strand-Of-Hair-On-That-Person's-Ass" graphics. Neutral

Starting with Megaman 9, we might see something like this.

Very true, Nekkoru. Very Happy

Posted: Sep 14 2008 07:04 pm

Shut up, Dorn wrote:

Granted, Howard Scott Warshaw had maybe 2 weeks to program this game. If it had been an NES game, maybe it could have been like a boy and a blob thing.

Still - a worthless POS.

Actually, I think it could have been worse had it been an NES game. I can guess that it would take more time to develop an NES game than an Atari 2600 game.

Posted: Sep 14 2008 07:17 pm

There are some great 2600 games. Mostly the Activision and Imagic stuff. But as someone else said, the system is so primitive that if you didn't grow up with it, it's hard to understand the magic of playing Pitfall and River Raid for hours on end.