Sy's N64 Mindless Ramble With Virtually No Content 2: The Worst Game Ever!
December 1997
Hello. If you're reading this from anywere other then "Sy's Space 'o Nothing", you may be wondering who I am. Well, I'm Brent Hirose, and I've known Josh for a bit now (I AM assuming you're reading it from N64 Surge). It would be thanx to him this document ever reached your hands. Anyway, I should begin.
As you may know, the editorial today is about the worst game ever, and while we're there we'll also be talking about bad games in general. Can you stand the excitment? Will you be able to contain yourself? Wow. I've never cleared a room so fast. Anyway, I'll begin.
"Then, in the year of 19XX there was a man who ventured forth, and created a new generation of entertainment. Pong. And it was good. From this invention sprung other such wonders, Space Invaders, Pac-Man, ect. Then another man ventured futher and created that Atari. It was followed by many others, vastly increacing the holy joy sent out by the first. Unfortunetly, the even the most holy of things is not un-soiled in this land of turmoil, and the communities where shattered by a great evil. The crappy game. The greatest of men where brought down, as where the most powerful of companies by this evil. And so the most holy editorialist where sent forth to bitch about it." Atari 1: 1-10 (Yes, this IS a joke...)
Well, it seems crappy games have always been around. I've played lots of 'em. From "hunt and capture" on my old Atari 2600 to *sudder* WarGods on the N64. These games are just sad, sad excuses. I beilive that if we can find out WHAT makes a game bad, maybe we can start to change it.
First of all, what IS bad? No game... heck, no ANYTHING made today seems to be without flaws. Of corse, if the good points outwiegh the bad, only critics really notice (unless it's staggering) Mario64's somtimes obscure view didn't put it down by much, did it? Alright. So we know for somthing to be "all-in-all" bad, it's bad points need to be a) many or b) too important to miss. Aka, a awsome racing game with crappy control would head straight to the bargain bins while the same game with good control and crappy sounds or graphics would be MUCH better recieved. The of corse, there are the otherthings. And RPG written by a two-year old isn't gonna bring in that much money. It's things like that.
Now, since the first thing seemed to be obvious, lets see why a game company would let such simple things as speed, graphics, play control, design, sound, overall satisfaction and quality pass them by. Let's have a looksee at Nintendo Power #100, with the 10 worst games in history.
10.The Adventures of Bullwinkle
9. Color a Dinosaur
8.Beethoven
7.Michal Jordan in the Windy City
6.Friady the 13th
5.Pit-Fighter
4.AD&D; Heros of the Lance
3.Shaq Fu
2.Barbie's Super Model
1.Bebe's Kids
Also, many people say Home Alone (any of them!), War Gods, SW:SotE, ect should be added to this list. Anyway, let's look closer.
What sunk these games? One reoccering theme seems to be licence. Bullwinkle, Beethoven, MJ in the WC, Ft13th, Shaq, Barbie and Bebe where all originally from other feilds then video games. Many comapnies let quality control slip a little in licence games. My idea is that companies who have little money at the time make such games in a short time with small developpment costs to get more funds. It's not a very good idea, if that's what they were thinking. another re-occering theme seems to be a good graphics/ Crappy play control deal. Who knows, mabe Bebe's kids would have been fun if you could get the damn main charater to move his fat ass......
Another problem with more of these games (Ad&D;, Color, Friday the 13th and Barbie) is that they are designed HORIBBLY! Color a Dinosaur is basically Paint for windows 3.1 without a mouse or anything fun like in Mario paint. In Barbie, you decided if Babie puts up the tent. (What do you think? With the tent. Without the tent. With the tent. Without the tent. Well?) in AD&D;, the maze can be beat in about 5 mins. Friday, is just BAD. It seems that my first idea may be right about these bad games my friends.They just need cash. Well, how else can you explain carppy, buggy, stupid, boring games that only are good when you're not playing them? It's all eye-candy. It's a giant sales pitch, trying to take as much as it can with it as it (inevitabley) goes down. Or corse, there are the other reasons: Deadlines, ect, all along thoses lines, but I like my idea the best ;P.
So what can we do about these games? How do we rid ourselves of the horrible evil? Is it possible to get rid of all the WarGods and MKT's out there? I think yes. If people took the time to tell a company what they want, and wnough wanted the same thing, I'll give you good odds that they'll change. Seriously, what use is there in creating a product there's no market for? You could also one day work for one of these companies themselves! That's a more dierect approch. If all fails, and the crappy games continue to pour out, the indusry could go end-of-atari level and restart. We have to learn from tall the bad things out there if we ever want to do anthing, right?
Live from Canada,