The man who made 'the worst video game in history'

[stripe4]

Can't guarantee the accuracy of the statement (IMO today's mobile freemium games are far worse), but that's what BBC picked for the title of an interview with Howard Scott Warshaw, programmer of ET:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35560458

I actually listened to the interview live on BBC World Service radio, but the article contains some nice photos.

Edit: found the audio version:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03j4c0y

[leapinlew]

Queue: someone coming along saying how the game wasn't that bad if you read the instructions

[pbj]

---fudgesicle--- that.  Pure garbage.  He fully deserves the ridicule he got, and if he'd shut up about it he'd realize the world quit caring 20 years ago.

[vwalbridge]

Warshaw was only given about five weeks to develop ET in time for the 1982 Christmas season. Cut the guy some slack.


....just kidding. That game was abysmal. Kids are pumping out better iPhone games today, in less time.

[leapinlew]

Warshaw was only given about five weeks to develop ET in time for the 1982 Christmas season. Cut the guy some slack.


....just kidding. That game was abysmal. Kids are pumping out better iPhone games today, in less time.

The people who need beatup are the marketing folks.

[vwalbridge]

To be fair, it's not like ET was the only garbage game every made. In fact, plenty of garbage games were right along side ET at that time.

However, what made ET different and made it King of the Hill of garbage was 2 reasons:

1. They chose to make a game based on a very popular movie. The game was going to get A LOT of attention for this reason alone...so better not screw it up.

2. They waaaaay over produced the game. The game saturated the market. The game was already terrible...why did they keep making copy after copy? Doing so only entrenched the game further into the history as worst game ever.

[monkeybomb]

Queue: someone coming along saying how the game wasn't that bad if you read the instructions

It's still bad, really bad, but it changes things dramatically.  The worst game in history title is silly fun, but I think people actually take it seriously.  Watching that is the fun part imo.

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah but the thing is, if your game is really good it's intuitive enough to where people don't need to read the instructions.  The one of the reasons Super Mario Bros. is most likely the most important video game of all time is the fact that the first stage teaches you how to play smb in the scope of the first level without so much as a line of text.  Well that and the impressive amount of logic sentences you can build just from a jump. 

Ignoring that though, the instructions don't fix some of the worst hit detection of all time.  The fact that you can fall in a hole if the top of your head hits a hole ABOVE you is the main reason that it's so crappy. 

[SlammedNiss]

However, what made ET different and made it King of the Hill of garbage was 2 reasons:

1. They chose to make a game based on a very popular movie. The game was going to get A LOT of attention for this reason alone...so better not screw it up.

2. They waaaaay over produced the game. The game saturated the market. The game was already terrible...why did they keep making copy after copy? Doing so only entrenched the game further into the history as worst game ever.

If the game wasn't named 'ET', I don't think it would have garnered near as much hate as it did.

[vwalbridge]

However, what made ET different and made it King of the Hill of garbage was 2 reasons:

1. They chose to make a game based on a very popular movie. The game was going to get A LOT of attention for this reason alone...so better not screw it up.

2. They waaaaay over produced the game. The game saturated the market. The game was already terrible...why did they keep making copy after copy? Doing so only entrenched the game further into the history as worst game ever.

If the game wasn't named 'ET', I don't think it would have garnered near as much hate as it did.

Exactly my point. Still a crappy game but riding on the coat tails of a popular movie didn't help at all.

[Howard_Casto]

Especially when you take into account the fact that the Star Wars games on the 2600 weren't exactly masterpieces.  If the game was simply mediocre I don't think it would have ever earned the title... it had to outright suck.

[pbj]

If the game was simply mediocre I don't think it would have ever earned the title... it had to outright suck.

If you're going to win, you've got to beat the other team.  And to way to do that is to win.

[stripe4]

Warshaw was only given about five weeks to develop ET in time for the 1982 Christmas season. Cut the guy some slack.


....just kidding. That game was abysmal. Kids are pumping out better iPhone games today, in less time.

Writing games back then was a lot more difficult task:

• code was written in a low level programming language (assembly language)
• hardware resources were very limited
• the final version of the game had to be perfect - once the game was in a cartridge, you had no way to push a bug fix

Nowadays developers have a far greater choice of programming languages, tools, and libraries. Today's PCs, consoles, and mobile devices are far more powerful than Atari 2600, and fixing a bug is a matter of pushing a new version or a patch to an online distribution point (app store, download section of a website etc).

If Mr. Warshaw designed and wrote ET in just five weeks, there is no doubt he was very talented at the age of 24. I also think he pointed out the main flaw of ET pretty well: "it's OK to frustrate in a video game (I know what to do but I'm not good enough), but it's not OK to disorient (I have no idea what to do)". OK, maybe he really overdesigned the game...

[pbj]

Could have kept the title screen.

You control some smiley face that represents Elliot and in a Pac-Man maze you have to gather magical candy for your sick friend ET.

After four levels, ET can fly and you cut to a victory screen that's a silhouette of you on your bike in front of the moon.  Play the same title screen music.

Now more of the same, except harder.

Instead, he had to invent some damned stay out of the holes simulator with extendo neck action.  I bought that game for $1 at a flea market in the early 90s, completely agnostic to the controversy, and that was one of the biggest ripoffs of my life.

 

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah I never did understand what holes had to do with ET.  I guess it was to create an enemy where none exists.  The thing is, the government agent that was put in the game would have been enough... just make multiple guys and have them chase you more aggressively.  A simple screen showing the machine parts scattered around the map at the beginning would have fixed the whole "wtf do I do?" issue. 

[popsicle]

Warshaw also designed and programmed Yars Revenge and Raiders of the Lost Ark, two great games for the 2600.

[leapinlew]

Warshaw also designed and programmed Yars Revenge and Raiders of the Lost Ark, two great games for the 2600.

WARSHAW LOVER. GET YER TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!!

[DaOld Man]

ET was pretty bad, but so were 95% of the games for the 2600. (But Ive been spoiled by the games since then, so I may be a little judgmental.)
Pacman sucked, however, Ms Pacman was much better. Donkey Kong sucked, as did Burgertime.
They were so bad compared to the arcade machines they imitated.
Still bad that he got credited for bringing down Atari.

Edit: thanks for the link, interesting article.

[ark_ader]

Well Spielberg said the game was very well done.  5 weeks coding something that fit in 4K with music and 2600 esque graphics.  I would say it wasn't half bad.  The haters can go and code us something in 5 weeks in 6502 assembler, to show how good they are.

Odds are most coders today couldn't muster up pong in 5 weeks.  I remember back when I had my Acorn Electron, coding in assembler was pretty hard to get your head around.  Great for routines, like screen updates, and GCSE computer studies projects.

Here is a pretty good primer for the c64:

[pbj]

The haters can go and code us something in 5 weeks in 6502 assembler, to show how good they are.

The haters aren't being paid big bucks to code atari games. 

They also aren't appearing in revisionist "it wasn't that bad, really" documentaries.

Good luck on your date, we are all rooting for your happiness.

 

[Howard_Casto]

The programming language doesn't really have anything to do with difficulty.  It's hard to code in assembly these days because nearly no one does it.... if you are unfamiliar with a language of course it seems harder.  Guess what everyone was using to code games in the 70's?  That's right, assembly.... so it didn't seem hard at all to the programmers of the day. 

Now if he has been picked off the street and expected to learn assembly and make a game in 5 weeks your point would have been valid, but since he already knew it, the point you are trying to make falls apart like loose sand. 

[Grasshopper]

The programming language doesn't really have anything to do with difficulty.  It's hard to code in assembly these days because nearly no one does it.... if you are unfamiliar with a language of course it seems harder.  Guess what everyone was using to code games in the 70's?  That's right, assembly.... so it didn't seem hard at all to the programmers of the day. 

Now if he has been picked off the street and expected to learn assembly and make a game in 5 weeks your point would have been valid, but since he already knew it, the point you are trying to make falls apart like loose sand.

I'm sorry Howard, but you're talking nonsense. It is vastly more difficult to program in assembly than any high level language, and that's particularly true of the early 8 bit processors that were incredibly primitive by today's standards.

It's been a long time since I've coded in 6502 assembly language but, from memory, it only had three 8 bit registers, and all the processor could really do is add and subtract 8 bit numbers from one another. If you wanted to do something as complex as multiplying two numbers together, or just adding up two 16 bit numbers, you had to write your own code to do it. And forget about local variables, passing parameters to a function, automatic garbage collection, etc. You had to manage the tiny stack and heap all on your own.

[leapinlew]

The programming language doesn't really have anything to do with difficulty.  It's hard to code in assembly these days because nearly no one does it.... if you are unfamiliar with a language of course it seems harder.  Guess what everyone was using to code games in the 70's?  That's right, assembly.... so it didn't seem hard at all to the programmers of the day. 

Now if he has been picked off the street and expected to learn assembly and make a game in 5 weeks your point would have been valid, but since he already knew it, the point you are trying to make falls apart like loose sand.

I'm sorry Howard, but you're talking nonsense. It is vastly more difficult to program in assembly than any high level language, and that's particularly true of the early 8 bit processors that were incredibly primitive by today's standards.

It's been a long time since I've coded in 6502 assembly language but, from memory, it only had three 8 bit registers, and all the processor could really do is add and subtract 8 bit numbers from one another. If you wanted to do something as complex as multiplying two numbers together, or just adding up two 16 bit numbers, you had to write your own code to do it. And forget about local variables, passing parameters to a function, automatic garbage collection, etc. You had to manage the tiny stack and heap all on your own.

Pretty sure Howard wasn't comparing it to any other language. He was saying since it was the mainstream language of the time, the language used to create the game doesn't factor in. PBJ makes a good point too.

What exactly is Grasshopper and Arks points here anyhow. The game was good? The game gets bashed more than it should?

[Howard_Casto]

The programming language doesn't really have anything to do with difficulty.  It's hard to code in assembly these days because nearly no one does it.... if you are unfamiliar with a language of course it seems harder.  Guess what everyone was using to code games in the 70's?  That's right, assembly.... so it didn't seem hard at all to the programmers of the day. 

Now if he has been picked off the street and expected to learn assembly and make a game in 5 weeks your point would have been valid, but since he already knew it, the point you are trying to make falls apart like loose sand.

I'm sorry Howard, but you're talking nonsense. It is vastly more difficult to program in assembly than any high level language, and that's particularly true of the early 8 bit processors that were incredibly primitive by today's standards.

It's been a long time since I've coded in 6502 assembly language but, from memory, it only had three 8 bit registers, and all the processor could really do is add and subtract 8 bit numbers from one another. If you wanted to do something as complex as multiplying two numbers together, or just adding up two 16 bit numbers, you had to write your own code to do it. And forget about local variables, passing parameters to a function, automatic garbage collection, etc. You had to manage the tiny stack and heap all on your own.

Pretty sure Howard wasn't comparing it to any other language. He was saying since it was the mainstream language of the time, the language used to create the game doesn't factor in.

Well at least I don't have to over-explain my point to one person.  Common sense high-five! 

We are spoiled by modern, high-level languages, but if all you ever knew was assembly and everyone, not just in your company, but the entire industry, was using assembly then you can't use the excuse "assembly is hard and that's why ET sucked". 

[Grasshopper]

What exactly is Grasshopper and Arks points here anyhow. The game was good? The game gets bashed more than it should?

I don't really have an opinion on the game. I agree it looks pretty bad from the screenshots, but I've never actually played it.

I was simply responding to Howard's assertion (which he's now backtracked on) that programming in assembly language is essentially the same as programming in any other computer language, once you're familiar with it. It was such a ludicrous thing to say that I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

I think Arks point was in response to someone saying that Kids are pumping out better iPhone games today, in less time. However, for the reasons already given, it's simply not a fair comparison.

[SlammedNiss]

I started thinking. Anybody who thinks E.T. is the worst video game ever has never played Superman on N64. That game is horrendous and I'd much rather play thru E.T. again than play 5 minutes of Superman.

[harveybirdman]

What exactly is Grasshopper and Arks points here anyhow. The game was good? The game gets bashed more than it should?

I don't really have an opinion on the game. I agree it looks pretty bad from the screenshots, but I've never actually played it.

I was simply responding to Howard's assertion (which he's now backtracked on) that programming in assembly language is essentially the same as programming in any other computer language, once you're familiar with it. It was such a ludicrous thing to say that I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

I think Arks point was in response to someone saying that Kids are pumping out better iPhone games today, in less time. However, for the reasons already given, it's simply not a fair comparison.

Howard gotta Howard

He is a genius that has added tons of software contributions to this hobby, and he can bowl a perfect game with the provided alley balls if you know what I'm sayin....

[leapinlew]

I don't really have an opinion on the game. I agree it looks pretty bad from the screenshots, but I've never actually played it.

Well then, get a time machine and go back and wait for this game to come out, plunk down your cash and then play it for a while.

 

[yotsuya]

Once it was explained to me how to play the game, it was actually quite fun. Yes, the hit detection is horrible, but it really is kind of a challenge to find the missing phone parts and go home. So I don't think it's that bad of a game, I've certainly played worse.

The guy that created Custer's Revenge wants to fist fight this guy for the worst game title.

[pbj]

So, again, it was a combination of things that bestow the title on E.T. 

There are quite a few bad games out there.

Yes, we all agree on that. 

Looking forward to revisiting this topic again in six months.

[Le Chuck]

The guy that created Custer's Revenge wants to fist fight this guy for the worst game title.

Trump?

[monkeybomb]

I've certainly played worse.

Everyone here has.  It's no fun to talk about those games.

[ark_ader]

The programming language doesn't really have anything to do with difficulty.  It's hard to code in assembly these days because nearly no one does it.... if you are unfamiliar with a language of course it seems harder.  Guess what everyone was using to code games in the 70's?  That's right, assembly.... so it didn't seem hard at all to the programmers of the day. 

Now if he has been picked off the street and expected to learn assembly and make a game in 5 weeks your point would have been valid, but since he already knew it, the point you are trying to make falls apart like loose sand.

No Warshaw was picked up by the management at Atari, coded a game in five weeks for the Christmas market and the company bankrupted it self due to mass manufacturing of the said game and due to returns.  I can remember I returned mine for frogger.  Games cost $59 back then and you got one for Christmas or your birthday.

Even if Atari made millions of Yars Revenge (and the sequel which is pretty good) carts, the very game Warshaw had to sell to management to get the game made, the console would have died a death anyway.   I can remember how many pacman carts they made too. Plus the Sears variant which had it's own carts. 

Assembler?  You have to squeeze and juggle code in to make the game work.  Not an easy task even for the early 80s, as Raiders took 6 months to develop, and we are talking 1980s here and not 2016.  So my comment is pretty accurate, compared to languages available today like C++.

Probably why Warshaw was chosen and not David Crane. Crane would have told Atari to piss off.

[Vigo]

Warshaw also designed and programmed Yars Revenge and Raiders of the Lost Ark, two great games for the 2600.

I do not get why Raiders gets so much love. Terrible game. The game makes zero sense without gluing your face to the instructions, which had to be so descriptive to tell you what is going on, it was practically a walkthrough.

[yotsuya]

Warshaw also designed and programmed Yars Revenge and Raiders of the Lost Ark, two great games for the 2600.

I do not get why Raiders gets so much love. Terrible game. The game makes zero sense without gluing your face to the instructions, which had to be so descriptive to tell you what is going on, it was practically a walkthrough.

Never played it.

[pbj]

I never even heard of it until I watched that documentary about E.T. being not so bad.

[popsicle]

Raiders was a pretty quirky adventure type game. Yes, you needed a manual, and some parts could be frustrating (using the parachute to get into that hole -ugh). My young brain remembers that there was a lot of game there - it followed a story and there were many screens, items, and mini games. Lots of atmosphere. I think Riddle of the Sphinx was similar in game play.

Don't get me wrong, I won't be playing it anytime soon, but I won't be playing through Ultima IV again either.