Atari 2600 #25: Stargunner

 

Developer: Telesys

Publisher: Telesys

Release: 1983

Stargunner has everything I have come to expect from a Telesys game minus one important thing. It doesn't have a funny name. Didn't they get the memo? Telesys games are supposed to have silly puns in their titles. The box art isn't funny either. It just looks like a Stargunner. I don't know what order the games were released in, but I know that at the very least Demolition Herby has a later serial number. Perhaps with Stargunner they were just taking a break from funny titles and not abandoning them altogether. At least it gave me something to talk about in the first paragraph. I already mentioned that Stargunner gave me everything I expected. What I meant by that is they simplified a much more famous arcade game so that it could run quicker on the 2600. 

In this case their inspiration in the classic Defender. I loved the Atari 2600 version of Defender when I was a kid, and it has such sentimental value to me that I have no idea if it's good or not. I think it gets a mixed response, but it's also not a game that was done so bad that people needed a replacement. Telesys didn't add something missing like they did with Demolition Herby. They just took a very famous game and used it as the inspiration for their much less famous game. It's not purely plagiarism, but it doesn't take very long to see where they got the idea for their game. 

Stargunner is a much more stripped-down experience than Defender. While Defender featured an entire city complete with a map, Stargunner only has one screen. The rolling hills at the bottom of the screen give the illusion of size, but if you fly to the edge of the screen, you just pop up back on the other side. The targets on the screen are also more passive. They don't shoot at you and can only attack by colliding. There is a ship at the top of the screen that shoots down at you, so there's plenty of action to deal with. The objects on the screen are a bit abstract so I'm not sure how to describe them. Maybe an onigiri and an enzyme? Well, whatever they are they must be eliminated. So, you shoot one target, it turns into another target, and you keep doing that until you die. It's simple, but it plays well. It has a certain addictiveness to it. 

My main problem with Stargunner is the poorly balanced difficulty. On the default easy setting the game can get almost boring. The targets move slow, and the shots coming from above are easy to avoid. Of course, this is the starter difficulty, so it's supposed to be easy. What of the other difficulties? Things get too intense too fast. Even the second option is much too hard. The ships suddenly zip across the screen, and their one goal is to collide with you. I could barely get a shot off without having some kamikaze aliens blow me up. I could easily get 30,000 or more points on the easiest setting, and on any higher difficulty I could barely break 1,000. I just wish there was a difficulty between the two extremes where the ships were more of a threat but not constantly suicidal. It's a shame because if it was well-balanced, it might be a true hidden gem. 

When I'm comparing every game ever made, 2600 games have to really be good to break into the green section. Stargunner doesn't rise up to that standard, but it's still alright. It's sad that of the three highest ranked Telesys games, two of them were adaptions of already existing arcade games. I feel like Telesys was a company that wanted to have big ideas and memorable games, but they fell short. It could've been that they ran into the crash just about the moment they started and just had to do whatever they could to survive. I'll probably never know for sure, but they weren't phoning it in either. Stargunner comes in at #115 which is almost halfway up the list. I'm already up to 184, which means I'm getting close to 200. I should play something special for my 200th, but that's a story for another day. 

Atari 2600 quality percentage: 9/25 or 36%

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G01RKJ7-caaal5lgFfGgPfZRGcqWlv4E3E2E615UYKg/edit?usp=sharing

Atari 2600 #24: Ram It

 

Developer: Telesys

Publisher: Telesys

Release Date: January 1983

(The box art implies the existence of circles. Sadly, none are featured in the actual game.)

I pride myself on being able to make a good essay out of anything. I love to take insignificant things and turn them into interesting written pieces. However, 2600 games can push me to my limit sometimes. So many of them are single screen games that have simple goals and were made by phantoms who were in business for about six weeks and left behind no digital footprint. I can't even pad them out with biological information because there is none to be found. It's even more difficult with a company like Telesys that I have already covered and have nothing new to say. I've already told what little of their story I can tell, and now I have to fall back on the hope that their last couple of games are at least interesting to talk about. Well, Ram It is an essayists worst nightmare. It's not a terrible game, but it is about as simple as games get. I think I could get some more interesting stories out of a tic-tac-toe simulator than I can out of this game. I guess the name is a little funny. Of course, I've already talked about how they made boring games with funny titles. I guess I'll just get into it, and we can all make the most of what we have.

(One thing I will say about Ram It though. It is definitely this game.)

Ram It has you controlling a gun attached to a rail in the center of the screen. You can move up-and-down and shoot either direction, but you are otherwise stuck. Your goal is to take out all the colorful rectangles that are slowly filling the screen. They start out tiny, but they will randomly grow until you are trapped. There is also a countdown that will cost you a life if it runs out, so you have to hurry. Once you destroy all the rectangles you get to move on to the next level which is a little bit harder. It's the standard Atari setup. I can tell their main goal was to have as many colors on the screen as possible. It looks very nice, and it certainly shows off how far the Atari had come during its lifespan. I like how the top and bottom are curved with makes it look like you are trapped in a big, colorful burger. 

It looks nice, but there is something unsatisfying about shooting at passive rectangles. They don't do anything but grow, and even the growing is random. My main strategy on easy mode is to start from the top-left, shoot my way down to the bottom, and then shoot my way back up from bottom-right. If I aim just right, I can take out two rectangles at once and then turn around and take out two on the other side. In fact, this is just the strategy they recommend in the instructions. I can practically ignore the length of the rectangles and just focus on the system. It's a successful system, but not a very exciting one. It is more frantic on higher difficulty settings, and they add in bonus blocks that will disappear completely if you shoot them while flashing. It's some much needed variety in an otherwise very repetitive game, but the straight-line strategy is still fairly effective. 

And that's about all I can say about Ram It. I hate it when my reviews become nothing more than describing the gameplay, but Ram It doesn't give me much material to work with. The name is funny I guess, but not funny enough to keep a review going. Ram It came out in the era when dozens of amateur companies started making terrible 2600 games and flooding the market with junk, so it actually looks fairly good stacked up against the competition. It's well made, and there is something mildly addictive about the gameplay. Unfortunately, all those terrible games are much more interesting to write about. Ram It is a competently made mediocracy that was probably appreciated in the dark days of 1983, but nothing special when stacked up against the whole library. 

(Suddenly I am hungry for a Pride Burger. Is that a thing?)

Ram It is very comfortably in the purple section just like most Telesys games. With their weird titles and fun box art I expected more. The only one I have left to review is the one with the least interesting name, so maybe it will be the most fun to play. I may write about some more boom-era publishers because I think their stories are interesting even if the individual games are not, so get out your Atari bingo cards. Ram It ranks in at #127 overall and #15 on the Atari list. I have a feeling the majority of the less famous third-party games are going to be about as good as Ram It, so I have quite the journey ahead of me. I hope you like reading about boring old Atari games, because I probably still have hundreds of them to go. 

Atari 2600 Quality Percentage: 9/24 or 37.5%

Sega Master System #11: Captain Silver

 

Developer: Data East

Publisher: Sega

Release Date: September 1989

Recently I was thinking about how positive I have been toward the Sega Master System. 70% of them have been good so far? That's way too many. I've got to find some lesser games to balance things out. To do this I decided to go back to a game I have a bit of a history with. Captain Silver was one of the first SMS game I ever owned. I found it thrifting in my tiny hometown which I always thought was odd. It's hard to believe anyone in my town ever owned a Master System, but we had an Atari 7800 so I guess it's not that strange. I didn't have many SMS games at the time, so I played it enough for form a fairly strong opinion. That opinion was that it had to be one of the worst games on the console. Acquiring more games didn't change my opinion much either. It was always one I ranked near the bottom. Several years after buying it I was playing some games for Twin Galaxies. My main goal was setting the record on Hang-On, but I had some extra room on my VHS tape. I decided to get a high score on Captain Silver since none had been submitted so far. My Hang-On record was beaten fairly quickly by someone with more focus than me, but my Captain Silver record stood for years. I spent nearly a decade being the Captain Silver world champion. In spite of this, however, I'm not sure if I fully understood the game. I play it now and it's not quite the trainwreck I remember. Is it actually a better game that I had thought, or am I just getting soft in my golden years? 

I can certainly tell that Captain Silver started life as an arcade game. It comes from the post-crash and pre-Street Fighter era where shooters and intense platformers ruled. Master System was full of arcade adaptations, and for the most part they tried to keep them authentic. Captain Silver certainly feels like a game that is still trying to eat your quarters. You move slowly and the enemies just keep coming. In the first level they are mostly dispatched with one hit, but as the levels go on, they become more difficult to defeat. I've never been a huge fan of these slow-moving side-scrollers, but I can't say it doesn't execute. The controls are fine, and I never had trouble attacking or jumping. I just find the whole thing a bit dull. There's nothing too exciting about slowly swinging a sword at a slow-moving enemy, even when there are several slow-moving enemies on the screen at the same time. There are a few branching paths and moving platforms that add some much-needed variety, and I enjoy earning extra lives by collecting letters that spell out Captain Silver from defeated enemies. There are also shops that sell a few power-ups, but unless you haven't upgraded your weapon all the way they are pretty useless. It just doesn't make much sense saving up 30,000 coins to buy an invincibility potion that only lasts about thirty seconds. Nothing they try keeps it from being uninteresting. It's certainly not one of the worst things I've ever played. However, there is another big problem with the American version of the game. 

In most regions Captain Silver came out in 1988 with six levels. The American version came out a year later, and for some reason they took out two of the levels. The instruction manual even says there are six levels, but they are nowhere to be found. With the two levels missing Captain Silver takes a miniscule ten minutes to play through. Nobody is going to beat it on their first try, but it's not a particularly hard game either. By 1989 this kind of brevity was unacceptable. I can't think of a shorter game that wasn't insanely hard. Cybernoid only lasts about ten minutes, but it would take hours to get good enough to finish it. Captain Silver just doesn't have the challenge level to justify being so short. It is novel having an SMS game that I can actually finish, but it's not the most satisfying win. 

I started this review by predicting that I was going to like Captain Silver more than I expected. I enjoyed it for the first couple of minutes, so I actually thought that it was better than I remembered. I suppose it was to a degree, but that's only because I thought it was one of the worst games of all time. At the very least I can say that it's not the worst game on Master System, and it probably won't be the worst game released in the US either. The controls and graphics are fine, and it can be entertaining in short bursts. As a complete package, however, it is too short and too basic to generate much interest. The Master System was known for its arcade ports, and Captain Silver was released after so many better ones had already been released. It even came out a month after the Genesis was released. Nobody was thinking about Captain Silver when there was 16-bit Altered Beast to play. Of course, it could be a better game than I'm giving it credit for. Maybe I'm just bitter because someone beat my record. 

So, after all that Captain Silver still ends up in the bad section. At least it's near the top, and I'm even putting it above Robodemons. It is 138 overall which makes it the third best bad game I have ranked so far. On the Master System specific list, it ranks 10 out of 11. It's better than 20-em-1, but it is the worst of the American games I have played so far. There are 114 US games, so we'll have to get through 104 more to see if that dubious record holds. That would make it stronger than my Captain Silver record, but at least I'm not bitter about it. I just think about how somewhere out there someone played Captain Silver even more than I did. This is one of those stories where nobody wins. 

Sega Master System Quality Percentage: 7/11 or 63.63%

NES #51: Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu

 

Developer: Joy Van

Publisher: Color Dreams

Release Date: 1989

("10 World of Adventure" is only accurate if you consider taking a nap an adventure)

If you know anything about Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu, it's probably from the Angry Video Game Nerd. He covered the game in one of his earliest videos, and it was strange going back and watching it after so many years. For one thing it's only around four minutes long. That was fairly normal for early YouTube, and remembering the earlier short form days makes me feel a little old. Hey kids, did you know back in the day YouTube videos could only be ten minutes long? I used to watch Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes cut up into 10 parts with sneaky titles so they wouldn't get flagged. Anyway, it was one of his shortest reviews, and one of the most obscure titles he covered back then. There were so many iconic bad games out there yet to be reviewed that Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu just felt out of place. Why did he pick it over every other game? It had to be that title, right? Nothing else on NES has a title even close to being that strange. I remember seeing this game at my local video store for years but always being afraid to actually rent it. Would my parents get mad at me if I rented a game about a drunkard? It's only the first paragraph and already I'm rambling. You know a game is boring when I start talking about the good old days. I didn't even like the good old days that much. Okay let's get on with it.

There's not much you can say outside of "it has a funny name and it's bad." That's about all AVGN had to say. It's not even bad in a very interesting way. Many of the Color Dreams games were developed in house, and those are fun to talk about. They get increasingly strange and amateurish as the company got more and more desperate. Their strategy of quickly releasing game after game backfired spectacularly, and it's the stuff of bad video game legend. Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu was made by Taiwanese company Joy Van who would later merge with the slightly more familiar Sachen. They specialized in cheap, tiny games usually made to be in multi-carts. If you've played many unlicensed games than you've probably seen their name. They were very prolific and ended up on just about every cartridge-based system in the 90s. Sometimes their games were properly licensed, but usually they went the bootleg route. Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu certainly feels like a game meant for a multi-cart. It's simple, repetitive, and extremely short. It looks more like a real game than a typical Color Dreams release, but it's not going to fool anyone.

Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu is a side-scroller that requires you to find eight yin-yang symbols and then fight a boss. Sometimes the symbols are out in the open, but more often they are hidden in completely random places and have to be shot to be revealed. Once you collect all eight of them you are whisked away to a boss fight. I do like how you are instantly flown to the exit even if the last symbol you collect is on the other side of the level. Why drag this out any longer than it has to be? It's mostly unremarkable outside of a couple of annoying quirks. For some reason they mapped the A button as a projectile shot and the B button as a fan wave which I think is supposed to be a melee attack. It makes me think that they had originally planned for projectile ammo to be limited and then changed their minds because there is no reason to ever melee attack. Most of the enemies start from far away and shoot things at you. Waiting for a close-up attack would be suicide. This also means that jumping uses the up button. It's not the worst "up for jump" game I have ever played, possibly because it never gets all that intense. I never got confused by it. Sadly, this means that it's not all that interesting. Almost interesting, but not quite.

After the collect-a-thon part of the level you are then taken to a boss fight. This too is very boring as they are all basically the same. They usually move back-and-forth while shooting forward. You just have to hang out on a platform until they turn and then shoot them in the back. Sometimes the platforms above you will have fire, but oddly you can shoot the fire to put it out. Still not very interesting. You repeat this formula five or six times and then fight an uninspired final boss that was just as easy and boring as the rest of the game. At least the game has an actual end screen instead of just text on a field of black. There were plenty of professionally made games that can't say that. 

I always feel weird ranking a game below Rocky and Bullwinkle. I was always under the impression that it was the worst game of all time. Now it's not even in the bottom ten, and Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu slots in just below it. It all comes down to being interesting. Rocky and Bullwinkle is bad, but it's bad in an unusual and unforgettable way. All the levels put in a new type of badness that I had never dreamed of before. Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu is just plain ol' boring. Once you've played it for five minutes you've seen everything. It's still better than Wayne Gretzky Hockey because there's more to look at than fields of blue ice. So, for now Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu is in my NES top 50 at a nice round 50/51. I plan on doing some more unlicensed games in the near future, so maybe it won't get knocked out as quickly as I expect. It's also 171 out of 181 on my overall list only saved from oblivion by a bunch of HyperScan and boring casino games. Nothing dooms a game more than being boring, and Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu should be put in the boring game hall of fame. 

NES Quality Percentage: 25/51 or 49.01%

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G01RKJ7-caaal5lgFfGgPfZRGcqWlv4E3E2E615UYKg/edit?usp=sharing

NES #50: Dragon Warrior II

 

Developer: Chunsoft

Publisher: Enix

Release Date: September 1990

I feel like Enix was powered by pure stubbornness before their merger with Square. At least that's what it felt like in America. How else can you explain them releasing four Dragon Warrior games in the United States? There are not a lot of series on NES that had four or more games, and you certainly wouldn't expect one of them to be a quirky RPG series that didn't even start getting released until 1989. Even Final Fantasy skipped a few games in the west. Enix decided to forge ahead, however, after the original Dragon Warrior became a surprise hit. Of course, that was with Nintendo's marketing. For the rest of the series, Enix would self-publish leading to a much more obscure trio of games. Every used game store has a copy of Dragon Warrior, but I rarely see the sequels anywhere. I know I saw at least one copy of Dragon Warrior II at a store, because I remember buying it many years ago. I also remember nearly pulling my hair out trying to finish it. Dragon Warrior II isn't a game for the faint of heart. It's big, it's confusing, and it is difficult. It's one of the most difficult turned-based JRPGs I have ever played. It's certainly more difficult than Enix's The 7th Saga. It's much more difficult, and everything is bigger compared to the first game, but not all the expansion makes for a better gaming experience. Dragon Warrior II is very much a transitional game.

Some of the lessons they learned from the first game translated into a better gaming experience. If you've played any games from later in the series, this one will look and feel more familiar than the original. While the original Dragon Warrior had a much more PC feel with its dark, mazelike dungeons, Dragon Warrior II has the bright, room-based dungeons that would influence the rest of the series. There are significantly more monsters, so fans of the series will see even more familiar faces. For people who obsess over tiny things, using stairs now happens automatically. I was especially happy that they fixed the key problem from the first game. Locked doors are opened by permanent keys that are found out in various places around the world. You don't have to go back to a specific town to buy keys that break after one use. Dragon Warrior II is the first game in the series to have a multi-character party and also the first to have multiple monsters in battle. I will talk more about these later, but they are certainly more in line with other Dragon Quest games. It even has cutscenes thereby expanding the narrative possibilities. It's impressive when an NES game has any kind of story, so the expansion from the excuse plot of the first game is quite welcome. 

It's also much, much bigger than the first game. The original landmass is just a small portion of a much larger map, and they were certainly proud of their bigger space. The first section of the game has your character travelling around a large section of map looking for companions. I feel like just this first continent is bigger than the entire first game. Luckily there are also multiple places to save. You still can't save in dungeons or on the world map, but most large towns have a place to save. If you were driven crazy by the claustrophobic grind of the first game than you will certainly appreciate the expansiveness of Dragon Warrior II. There's a bit less mindless grind and a bit more exploring. Of course, with battles as difficult as they are I've never been able to get into much of a mindless state. There is even a boat for more exploring. It was very impressive for 1987, and three years later it certainly still held up. I don't think it felt as old as the first game did despite its release gap being about the same. It's nothing like the multi-planet madness of the first two Phantasy Star games, but it certainly showed off the potential of RPGs even in an 8-bit setting. It all sounds great, but yet I just can't rave about Dragon Warrior II. I want it to be a masterpiece, but in spite of the developers attempt to make an expanded experience they fall short in some very critical areas. They had many great ideas, but they faltered in the execution. 

I already mentioned the expanded world map, and it's both a good and a bad thing. In the pre-boat section of the game the set-up is at least fairly logical. The main problem is that towns and dungeons are too far apart. There are big sections where there is simply nothing to find. And while the first few towns are clumped fairly close together, as the game goes on, they get farther and farther apart. After the party gets their boat things become extremely confusing. Most of the new areas are shaped oddly with the important points hidden deep within the continents. It's very easy to get lost out there looking for a new area to explore, and it doesn't help that there is no in-game map. Hopefully you bought this game new and had your fold-out map handy, or you exist in the internet era and looked one up. I can't imagine renting this game thirty years ago with no instructions or map to help me. Also, the teleporting item, wings of wyvern, only takes you back to the last town you saved in. The second half of the game features a lot of traveling, and it's hard when there's no quick way to travel between towns. All the while you have to put up with a downright brutal encounter rate. I can't tell you how many times I encountered battles within five steps of each other, and it's not unusual to fight two battles back-to-back. Just about every Dragon Warrior game going forward would have great world maps, and big quality of life improvements would be on the horizon, but in this early state it doesn't quite come together.

And it's the game's biggest innovation that I have the biggest problem with. I certainly love the concept of having multiple party members. Later in 1987 Final Fantasy would show gamers what was possible with a multi-party system. Every type of character had unique skills and weaknesses. Chunsoft would copy this model to great effect with Dragon Warrior III. Unfortunately, with Dragon Warrior II they had no idea what to do with the extra party members. They basically took the versatile hero from the first game and split him up into three people. The main character is only good for attacking with no magic or other skills. The prince, who you pick up second, is mixed character who can fight and cast spells but never gets that good at either. He doesn't get any of the good combat equipment and never gets enough MP to be used as a pure magician either. He is mostly good for casting healing spells. The princess, the final character of the trio, is only good for spells. She has almost no equipment and is constantly vulnerable to attack. Her combat spells are nice, but there is practically no way to restore MP outside of towns, so they constantly need to be rationed. This makes for a lot of battles where two thirds of the party are either going to be blocking or doing scratch damage. 

The game's difficult combat makes the situation even worse. There are groups of monsters to contend with, and you are not able to select which monster in a group each character attacks. This makes it hard to strategize in battle. You can't focus your strong attack on one monster in a group and two weaker attacks on another for example. This leads to many wasted attacks. Of course, sometimes monsters will appear as individuals in battle, but when this happens you can't use group spells on them. Both situations make combat extremely difficult. I've already touched on this, but it bears repeating. Dragon Warrior II is just hard. Battles will see the screen fill up with the most difficult enemies in the area, and they seem to have all the advantages. Monsters are not shy about casting all manner of status spells including those trees that cast instant death spells over and over. Exploring the open world is tempting, but because of the high difficulty you pretty much have to go everywhere in the correct order. Also, why did they make antidote a non-combat only spell? That doesn't connect to the main point of this paragraph. It's just another cruel thing about combat I just thought of.

Now that I've said all that I will admit that I do have fun playing Dragon Warrior II. The formula is just too strong for a Dragon Quest game to be a total failure. Sure, it's difficult and there's a lot of grinding, but there's still something appealing about it. Having three characters that all start at level one means that there's always someone relatively close to leveling up. In a game like Final Fantasy the party is complete from the very first moment, and they all gain levels at the same time unless a party member dies and misses some battles. I like the staggered system better. The difficulty can be frustrating, but that only makes the victories sweeter. Even games I love will sometimes fade from my mind, but I'll never forget playing through Dragon Warrior II for the first time. And while exploration can be dangerous, it's still exciting to attempt. It's not the series' greatest world, but it's still one I want to fully experience. There are enough hidden items and secrets to make it worthwhile. I also enjoy that it is a distant sequel to the first game and even features the original landmass as a late game easter egg. Continuity is rare with RPG series. 

It's a testament to how good these Dragon Quest games are that my least favorite game in the whole series is still my 25th highest ranked game. Of course, my tastes could change as I play through the other ones, so make sure you read those reviews too. It's an awkward and difficult game that is full of great ideas but hindered by its disappointing execution at times. If you are a fan of RPGs and want to play some of the historic ones than I certainly recommend it. If you're a more casual gamer than it's only going to lead to pain and frustration. I am a completely lunatic who has to play everything and even I got frustrated at times. Of course, game #26 on my list is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles so I guess that's just the pain and frustration section of the list. That might be the best description of the NES. They made games that were equal parts fun and painful. That might sound odd, but it was obviously a formula for success. 

Nintendo Entertainment System Quality Percentage: 25/50 or 50%

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G01RKJ7-caaal5lgFfGgPfZRGcqWlv4E3E2E615UYKg/edit?usp=sharing

NES #49: Robodemons

 

Developer: Color Dreams

Publisher: Color Dreams

Release Date: December 20, 1989

It's finally time to talk about Color Dreams, one of several unlicensed companies that flourished for a couple of years in the early 90s. Actually, Color Dreams was three of several unlicensed companies. They would also go on to release games as Bunch Games and Wisdom Tree. The fact that they kept having to change their name shows that they had a troubled history. Of course, they were operating illegally according to Nintendo. If you don't know, Nintendo consoles originally came with a lock out chip that would keep unlicensed titles from working. The idea was that Nintendo would only release games they approved of, and this would avoid the glut of shovelware that sunk the Atari 2600. Third party publishers were only allowed so many releases a year with quality being a factor in the number. This explains the Nintendo Seal of Quality. It also explains why games would blink when you turned them on. That was the lockout chip getting confused. It is obvious that Nintendo let plenty of stinkers get released. However, very few of the Color Dreams games raise to the level of the worst licensed games. It's hard to say who were the good guys during the unlicensed era. The people who figured out how to bypass the lockout could be seen as rebels getting around Nintendo's greedy policies because they had something to say and wanted to do things there way. However, outside of Tengen and Camerica, who both had famous companies behind them, most unlicensed games were purely amateur. Collectors usually don't even count them as part of the full set. I do, however, and I will review them along with any normal game. Nintendo ran them out of stores by 1991, but they managed to release 21 games during their brief window. Could a tiny inexperienced company have any sort of quality when they were releasing so much so quickly? Well, let's look at Robodemons.

Robodemons is an amateurish oddball, but one that at least plays like a real game. I think if I had rented this game in 1990, I wouldn't have felt ripped off. I sure did that time I rented Crystal Mines and couldn't get it to work, but that's another Color Dreams story. Robodemons is about evil King Kull who took over the Earth by transferring the souls of demons into robots. The don't look like robots though, so the game should probably just be called Demons. They were obviously trying to showcase imagery that Nintendo wouldn't normally allow, so it's full of devils, body parts, and scantily clad women. It's nothing too over the top, but it's still a bit jarring seeing a tied-up woman in a bikini in a Nintendo game. Each level is split into two parts with the first being a shooter and second being a side-scroller. The goals can change slightly from level to level, but typically you are fighting a specific demon in the shooting part and collecting a key to unlock the exit in the second part. It's a decent set-up, and I like how strange and different the side-scrolling parts look. One level you are walking on body parts and another you are in a robot factory. There were plenty of licensed games that didn't get so creative with their level design. The player's weapon is probably the most obvious flaw. It's a slow-moving boomerang that has to either hit something or complete its arc before it can be shot again. It can take a couple of seconds to finish which can be a lifetime in a theoretically fast-paced action game. There are no power-ups to be found, so it's just slow boomerang for the game's entirety. 

The more I played it, the more I noticed how unprofessional it was, but luckily the design flaws mostly worked in my favor. This is a nice change of pace for unlicensed games. Usually there will be glitches and errors that make games unwinnable. With Robodemons, if you can learn how to take advantage of the system than you can actually win. For example, practically no monsters respawn except for a couple of tiny demons. I usually dislike a game with too high of a respawn rate, but it still feels like they only left this feature out because they didn't really know how to do it. The demons don't even respawn after you die, so if you still have a life left your next try will be much easier. There is also a much higher limit on hearts than what appears. The screen only shows five hearts, but I'm not even sure if there is a limit. There are plenty of demons that drop hearts, so I made sure to actually kill them all and save up hearts. I felt fairly invincible after a while. Also, there is usually a powerful enemy guarding the locked exit doors. I discovered very quickly that the best strategy is to just ignore them. You can usually jump right over them and go through the door as long as you have the key. The only bosses that are necessary are a couple in the shooter sections and of course King Kull at the end. I feel like these are all flaws that would've been fixed if the game was professionally made. They are helpful flaws, but they definitely give away the truth behind the game. 

Expectations for unlicensed games are exceedingly low, so the fact that I was able to wring any fun out of Robodemons is no small feat. I can't say it's good exactly, but it's a decent way to start my Color Dreams journey. Maybe if it had a better weapon and it was longer it would be a hidden gem. I beat the game in about two hours, but there's only about ten minutes worth of game. If I knew all the tricks going in, I doubt it would've taken even that long. It does have a plot, but it's all told by text that is extremely difficult to read. Once again, it shows that these guys didn't know what they were doing.

I started this review by saying that most unlicensed games aren't as good as the worst licensed titles. I'm already going to contradict that statement by ranking Robodemons higher than a few of them. I thought it might sneak up into the okay section, but instead it's one of the elite bad games. I ranked it at #137 just behind Mario's Time Machine. It's hard to rank Robodemons above any game with Mario in it, even an iffy educational one. That means there's seven NES games I like less than Robodemons, including one, Baseball, released by Nintendo themselves. I'm not that familiar with the Color Dreams games, so it will be interesting to see where Robodemons ranks overall. Did I just get lucky and play the best one first? Only time will tell. 

NES Quality Percentage: 24/49 or 48.97%

NES #48: Frankenstein: The Monster Returns

Developer: Tose

Publisher: Bandai

Release Date: July 1991

(Unlike this cover, Frankenstein in the game has no chill)

Hey, did you know that Frankenstein is the name of the doctor and not the monster? It's a little-known fact that only gets brought up every time anyone mentions the character. If you imagine a know-it-all man saying this to a woman, then you would probably get along well with Frankenstein author Mary Shelly. It's a book about a lot of things, but it's hard to look past her critique of male privilege. The doctor is allowed to create a life and then quickly abandon it the second things get too hard with no immediate consequences. The monster feels that because he is intelligent, he should automatically be accepted into society. When his forcefulness frightens people, he takes it out on society instead of blaming himself. It's a world where the men make mistakes and expect sympathy while the innocent women in their lives end up being punished. Of course, Hollywood in 1931 wasn't ready for a monster that practically talked his victims to death, so they made the monster a silent brute. The themes of innocent women being punished for man's mistakes still shows up in the movie, but it is much more remembered for Boris Karloff's look and odd pathos. His version of the monster is a killer for sure, but more sympathetic than the chatty, calculating novel version. I bring this all up because 60 years after the famous movie Bandai released a game that throws all the famous interpretations out the window and creates an all-new version of the monster now presented as a cackling super villain. He's more Dr. Doom than Dr. Frankenstein with a new motivation to terrorize and countryside and destroy all who oppose him with an army of possessed minions. Of course, he sets all this in motion by kidnapping and innocent woman. Even with a much wilder premise, the themes of the original book and look of Karloff's movie monster are intact. Also, he's straight up called Frankenstein so just get used to it. What else would you call him anyway? His name is about the least strange thing about this strange game. 

Of course, what else would we expect from Bandai? They were by far the oddest publisher for the NES. They made games that looked primitive and jettisoned typical structures for open-ended strangeness. They adapted little-known IPs and rarely turned them into what we would consider normal games. Bandai is where we got such oddities as Ninja Kid, Dragon Power, and the most infamous of them all, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Just seeing that Banai logo on a game made you know that you were probably going to play something like you had never played before, and it had a very good chance of being garbage. Tose made several of these games, and much like Bandai they had a much brighter future after getting all the weirdness out of their system. They work with Square-Enix now mostly doing remakes of my all-time favorite games. They certainly feel like a company that was in it to last. Even their strangest early games feel like they were made by a team that was really trying. Frankenstein: The Monster Returns is a strange game that is hard to define, but it's certainly not a lazy one. 

The name alone made me think this was going to be a Castlevania clone, and while this comparison comes up in reviews almost constantly, it only resembles Castlevania in its spooky tone. Even then the resemblance is only surface level. Sure, they both have skeletons and ghosts, but Frankenstein is much more varied. Castlevania games are typically grounded in stone castles. Frankenstein takes the protagonist on a journey through much more varied environments. There is a castle, but you'll have to trek through forests and sewers to get there. The gameplay is more like a simplified River City Ransom. It is a somewhat open-ended side scroller with beat-em-up elements. It is divided up into levels, but the levels are full of secret passages and hidden items. They're not all good secrets either. Sometimes a bad jump will send you to an annoying mini boss. I enjoy the presentation though. Environments are vastly different from screen to screen keeping things from ever getting boring. I can't deny it's entertaining. The monsters are odd and challenging, and the overall strangeness of it helps it stand out from countless other NES side scrollers. 

Of course, this is the NES, and Frankenstein's biggest drawback is its difficulty. This is not a game you're going to make much progress on the first time. You start with a weak punch and difficult-to-execute jump kick. Monsters will drop upgrades, and Frankenstein would be practically impossible without them. The problem is that getting hit causes you to lose them. Weapons can be regained if you act quickly, but projectiles are lost for good. The way to beat Frankenstein is to get a projectile early in the game and then never get hit. Luckily backtracking is possible within levels, but it can get a little annoying going back to the beginning of a level to regain a projectile. Frankenstein does have a password and a few continues, but the continues don't reset when you enter your password on your next attempt. It's better to just try the level again if you get a game over and save the continues for later levels. After a few tries I was able to make some progress, so it doesn't cross the line into impossible to play territory. However, the difficulty can be disheartening if you're not used to NES difficulty or just want some goofy game to pass the time. 

I'm pleasantly surprised to say that I had fun with Frankenstein: The Monster Returns. I just love the kooky presentation. I don't think you're going to remember the awkward gameplay moments as much as you are going to remember the over-the-top dialogue and level design. Not every game has hopping tombstones and green-haired medusas. I enjoy the eccentric bosses that branch out a bit from a typical NES horror game. It's not just skeletons and giant bats. It was fun fighting a flying chimera and evil tree spirit for a change. They also have dialogue which gives them actual personalities. It even sneaks in some sympathetic moments as the monsters try to escape from Frankenstein's control. And while it certainly isn't the best-looking game on the system, the levels have enough personality to make up for it. 

So, Frankenstein: The Monster Return somehow sneaks into the good column. I was not expecting much and was pleasantly surprised. It's not super high on the list, but it's still a bit of a hidden gem. I'm ranking it at #82 right above Dracula: Crazy Vampire which was another oddball spooky game. That's a game I feel like I overrated, but I still think it's where Frankenstein belongs. With so many NES oddballs sneaking into the good section I feel that I will have no trouble getting past 100 good ones. I doubt Frankenstein: The Monster Returns is going to make it into the top 100 NES games, but it's certainly worth checking out. 

NES Quality Percentage: 24/28 or 50%

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G01RKJ7-caaal5lgFfGgPfZRGcqWlv4E3E2E615UYKg/edit?usp=sharing

Super Nintendo #9: Super Castlevania IV

 

Developer: Konami

Publisher: Konami

Release Date: 10-31-1991

I love the random nature of my blog so much that I tend to purposely avoid holidays and events on purpose just to be difficult. I'm just as likely to be writing about a Christmas themed volleyball game in October as I am something spooky. Actually, I might do that if I knew of any Christmas themed volleyball games. This year, however, I thought I would actually give in and cover one of the great spooky games. It's that classic Castlevania game with the funny name. Most games being upgraded for Super Nintendo either kept their NES numbering or added "Super" and started over. Konami had to go and do both. They really wanted the player to know that this game is super and it's also the fourth Castlevania game. I guess they were never much for subtlety. Honestly though I think they should've added a colon and named it Super: Castlevania IV because super is more of a description than a title. What they made was a Castlevania game that is just like the original except improved in every way. It's one of those great early Super Nintendo game that illustrated why the upgrade was so important. It really is stunning how many must-play games Super Nintendo had before its first Christmas. 

It's always interesting to play an old favorite that I haven't picked up in a long time because it's never quite how I remember. It's not too much of a surprise that Super Castlevania IV is difficult. That's pretty much a given for a side-scrolling Castlevania game. But it's not difficult in the way I expected. It's not an ultra-intense game that throws endless waves of enemies at the player. I was actually surprised by the game's leisurely pace. It's not quite as stiff as the NES Castlevania games, but Simon Belmont is still in no particular hurry to meet Dracula. There are moments where the enemies on screen will give you plenty of trouble, but they are deliberately spaced enemies and not endlessly respawing hordes. What makes Super Castlevania difficult, and also what makes it great, is that the game is always giving you a new experience. It's a slowly unfolding adventure where every level has a new surprise.

Super Castlevania IV is a remake of the original game on its surface, but the levels are much more intricate. It starts with the very first level's chain-link wall. Having multiple planes was still novel for a side-scroller, and you have to switch between the front and back to avoid holes. Famously there is a rotating room that has Simon hanging by his whip while waiting for the room to stop spinning. Konami throws out every graphical trick of the early SNES era including a spinning cylindrical room and giant candelabras that have to be jumped across. I can't say that the levels have much consistency, and despite them taking place mostly within Dracula's castle they can look radically different even from screen to screen. The developers were not concerned with making the castle seem like any kind of real place, so weirdness and fun are prioritized over authenticity. Sure, it makes sense that Dracula would have a library, but what does he need with a long hallway full green slime pools? Or a gallery consisting mostly of pictures of crossbows? Is it normal for castle to have interior towers? And parts of the castle seem to be actively working against Dracula. Simon would've never made it of there didn't just happen to be all those floating books going across those large gaps. Those books definitely have a mind of their own and they have aligned themselves with the good guys. Also, I would hate it if my library was full of giant pitfalls. I would be walking along with my nose in a book and that would be the end of me. That gives Super Castlevania two things in common with Gordo 106. They both have odd names and floors full of dangerous pits. Hey that's another thing I love about Super Castlevania IV. It gives me an excuse to reference terrible, obscure Atari Lynx games.

I could talk about the great levels all day, and the experience is improved by Konami finally making a Castlevania game with good controls. It's smoother than earlier games, there is a separate button for bonus weapons, and most importantly Simon's whip can now be swung every which way. I can't even describe how much better Castlevania games are when you can aim your weapon up and down. Simon can also swing his whip around limply like a rhythmic gymnast's ribbon. It's weaker than the normal attack, and is more for show than anything, but it does come in handy occasionally. What was cooler in 1991 than being able to swing your whip in any direction and climb stairs backwards? 

Super Castlevania IV is also a game that will keep a player busy for a while. When the original Castlevania came out far too many games had to be completed in one sitting. I don't think this is something that very many people miss from the good old days. Castlevania is an incredibly hard game, and I don't know if I've ever even made it halfway through without getting frustrated. Luckily, by 1991 many more games had passwords. This also meant that Super Castlevania IV could have more levels without getting too frustrating. I can take a break and come back if it gets too hard. I probably don't need to sell the concept of passwords to people in 2024, but it really is an important feature. The games were getting bigger in addition to being better looking. 

I'm starting to ramble a bit so I should probably wrap this review up. It can sometimes be hard to talk about such a familiar game and make it eloquent without just rattling off goofy compliments. Super Castlevania is going to rank high, but not as high as I initially expected. The top of my list is starting to get crowded with my favorite games. This means Super Castlevania IV is getting pushed all the way down to lucky #13. It's my second-best Super Nintendo game so far just behind Soul Blazer. It does break up the RPG monopoly at the top, but I still need more variety on the list. Maybe I'll expand into even more SNES genres. Did they ever make a good racing game for the system? Super Castlevania IV is definitely a great game for the Halloween season. It has the perfect atmosphere right down to the music, and most importantly is just fun to play. Castlevania would have a bit of an odd life in the 16-bit era with some interesting games but not any blockbusters until Symphony of the Night completely revamped the series. Symphony of the Night is the game that puts the "vania" in Metroidvania, and I think this is the type of gameplay associated with the series now. So, it's fun to go back and play a truly old school, level-by-level side scroller. It's easy to see why the Super Nintendo caught on so quickly. 

Super Nintendo Quality Percentage: 7/9 or 77.78%

Super Nintendo #8: The 7th Saga

Developer: Produce

Publisher: Enix

Release Date: 4-23-93

(Does anyone else think this cover makes it look like the hero is turning into a giant praying mantis?)

The 7th Saga is a game with quite the reputation, or at least as much of a reputation as a thirty-year-old game that nobody's ever heard of can have. It's a little-known RPG that is remembered mainly for being very hard. It's often thought of as the most difficult RPG on Super Nintendo, an epic grind that takes an hour or more of fighting the weakest enemies just to make it to the next town. Of course, the game's relative obscurity means that this reputation is overblown. More people have heard about this game than have played it. It's a game I have owned for years and only played a little bit out of fear. I didn't want to get twenty or thirty hours in only to realize that it was going to be too difficult to finish. I finally worked up the courage to actually attempt a playthrough, and I hate to sound boastful, but it really wasn't that hard. Now I've probably spent more time in my life playing RPGs than any other form of entertainment, but I don't think I'm that good at them. There are countless games I have started that got frustrating and I put on hold. If I could actually finish all the RPGs I've started, my backlog would shrink by 100 games or more. I am much better at enjoying them that I am at finishing them. So, take it from a true mediocre enthusiast when I say that The 7th Saga isn't as difficult as people say it is. Don't be afraid to give it a try. I've you're an obsessive RPG fan like I am, you will probably find something to like.

(This game (contains too many) rocks!)

I can see why people talk about the difficulty so much, because it really stands out in an otherwise traditional turned-based RPG. Of course, I love traditional RPGs so I'm not going to complain about that specifically. If you have played any than you know the drill. You visit towns, travel between them while fighting just an absurd number of monsters, save up to get better equipment, explore dungeons, and fight some screen-filling bosses. I'd say this is one of the most straightforward of all Super Nintendo RPGs. There aren't many side quests and it's hard to do anything out of order. Mostly this is a good thing. I think I played through it so quickly because I always knew what I was going to get. Honestly, for such a notorious game I was surprised how quickly I got into it. The developers certainly got that part right.

The most unique aspect of The 7th Saga, at least by 1993 standards, is its odd cast of characters. At the beginning of the game, you pick one of seven characters with mostly traditional RPG roles. All the non-chosen characters are sent out on the same quest, so you will encounter them along your journey. 
This doesn't always go well. There is room for another party member and sometimes they will want to join you. Other times they will fight you for your runes. I think other times they just say hello, but that's not very interesting. I think it's the character battles that is the most infamous aspect of the game. If they want to fight you in some random town than losing is no big deal. That's why they created the reset button. However, there is at least one moment where a fight is necessary, and you can't level your way out of it. Your rival levels up with you making the potential battle intimidating to say the least. I got very lucky in my playthrough and was joined by my rival. I sampled some of these battles though and they can be tough. I imagine this is where many players give up. 

(This game does have some random hidden items that make the search command not completely useless for a change)

Still, none of this bothered me too much. My main complaint is how the game looks. I just wrote about how impressed I was by Dragon Warrior managing to look distinct even in 1986. Well, The 7th Saga is the complete opposite side of the scale. I can't imagine an RPG looking more generic than this. It looks like it was made in an early version of RPG Maker. It's a game full of ugly, practically identical towns of grey cobblestones and dusty trails. All the terrain looks the same expect for the obligatory snowy area which is white instead of brown. It's a game where you can't tell if you are in the ruins of an ancient civilization or a typical item shop. There might be some different colors, but the difference between caves, mountain passes, and castles are practically nil. It's disappointing for a Super Nintendo game from 1993 for sure. It doesn't ruin the experience, but I expect better this far into a console's run.

I also think it's funny how deceptive the marketing was. Most of the literature I've seen about this game from the time was along the lines of "it has seven characters to choose from, that means you could play forever with endless combinations." But this isn't Saga Frontier. You can pick a character, but they all experience basically the same quest and there is only one generic ending. It's not a game heavy on plot to begin with. You might encounter some of your companions in different places, but after around the halfway point even this becomes infrequent. I think the second half of the game is basically identical no matter who you pick. It's not like they have much unique dialogue or personalities either. The dialogue is just as generic as the graphics. So, it may be a fun game to play through once, but I don't see much purpose in playing the game seven times. It might've seemed novel in 1993, but it was mostly a marketing gimmick. 

(Get used to the combat screen. You're going to be here a lot)

I hope more than anything that this review takes a bit of the infamy from the game and actually encourages people to play it. I really did have a good time with The 7th Saga, and it's a game I put off playing for a long time. It's not an epic slog that you have to play through seven times. It's a medium-to-difficult game that only requires one good playthrough to experience. It's mostly RPG comfort food that is fun to play even if it's not quite in the upper echelon of SNES RPGs. I love a game with incremental growth. I love the excitement of gaining a level or two and seeing if I am now ready to venture to that next town. The 7th Saga has many of these moments, and it was fun more often than it was frustrating. Sure, the stat gains are minimal in the American version, but levels don't really take that long to gain, and the added difficulty keeps combat from becoming rote. Every time they threw a new wrinkle into the game, like suddenly making the party unable to cast spells, it actually made the game more fun. It may feature cozy gameplay, but they never let you get too comfortable. 

The 7th Saga is coming in at #26 on the overall list which is impressive to say the least. I've played enough games now that I have 87 in the good column. That means that games in the upper third are starting to become actually high quality and not just good for what I have played so far. It's my third best SNES game, but I may be just a bit biased. The top 5 are all RPGs and the bottom three are everything else. I need to play some other types of SNES games. Maybe it's time to start getting to the true classics. Or perhaps it's time to play some dusty old trash that nobody cares about. Anyone know any interesting SNES Games I could try? 

Super Nintendo quality percentage: 5/8 or 62.5%

NES #47: Dragon Warrior

 

Developer: Chunsoft

Publisher: Nintendo

Release Date: August 1989

All these years later and I'm still shocked that all the 8-bit Dragon Quest games made it to America. RPGs were popular on computers, but it took a while for them to gain momentum on consoles. There is a technological reason for this of course, but I think that many RPGs from the 8-bit era hold up. There were many great developers in the 80s and 90s who could get the most out of whatever platform they were working with. It's also no secret that Japan loved them even with less advanced graphics and only two buttons. Having pop-up menus instead of memorizing dozens of keystrokes was apparently not that much of a deterrent. Still, most of Japan's RPGs stayed in Japan with only a few oddballs making it over that didn't exactly set the world on fire. Oh, you're going to send over Deadly Towers but keep the Heracles games for yourself? That's certainly a choice. The best RPG for the NES pre-Dragon Warrior is probably Zelda 2, which is more of a hybrid and is often considered the black sheep of the series despite it being a masterpiece. Seriously, Zelda 2 is great. So, this is where I'm going to give Nintendo some credit. They saw something in the Dragon Quest series and practically forced it to be a hit in America. They polished up an already three-year-old game and when it didn't sell as well as they had hoped gave it away with Nintendo Power subscriptions. It was the third best-selling game for Nintendo in 1989 which likely made it the most well-known RPG in the states until the Final Fantasy games hit Super Nintendo. However, is Dragon Warrior actually a good game? Or does its already old-fashioned gameplay by 1989 standards hold it back even further in 2024? Is it a game that is more important than it is good? Do you even have to ask? Dragon Warrior is a classic.

For the last 25 years Dragon Warrior has been my comfort game. It always cheers me up when I am feeling down. That's because I love RPGs more than anything, and Dragon Warrior is such a textbook RPG that it's infinitely appealing. It's everything I love about the genre condensed into a wonderful retro package. There are basically two things to do in Dragon Warrior: build up your character and explore. The world is fairly small but wide open, and there's not that much in terms of directions. The main way you can tell if you wander into the wrong area is by stumbling upon a monster that is too strong. The quest is laid out at the very beginning of the game and it's about as basic as it gets. There's a princess to be saved and a Dragon Lord to defeat. This is accomplished by solving cryptic clues, collecting some MacGuffins, and of course leveling up. The leveling will probably turn off some gamers, but I love it. For one thing the combat is exciting. There's not much mindless grinding in Dragon Warrior unless of course you want it to take 100 hours. But when I'm fighting monsters that are close to my level I'm constantly having to watch over my character. Death means losing half your gold, so it's best to try to stay as healthy as possible with healing spells and herbs. It's good to stay close to towns, but of course many of the earlier towns are surrounded by weak monsters that quickly become pointless. Equipment gets very expensive very fast, so I'm always trying to find ways to travel as lightly as possible. Buying healing items and wings for fast traveling would makes things easier in the short term, but I'm trying to save up thousands of dollars. This decision making is definitely part of the fun, and it certainly helps illustrate that Dragon Warrior is much more than mindless level grinding.

Of course, it also helps that Dragon Warrior takes place in a fun, vibrant world. For many of us Westerners approaching middle age, Dragon Warrior was our introduction to the art of Akira Toriyama. His lively, instantly recognizable style graced many projects over the years, most famously the Dragon Ball series, but he was one of the most important faces of the Dragon Quest series from the beginning up until his untimely death earlier this year. The cartoony monsters certainly set the game apart from the more grounded visuals of western RPGs. In most games, slimes would just be formless blobs. In Dragon Warrior, however, they are smiling, Hershey Kiss shaped mascots. They're one of the first things you see in the game, and it's no wonder they become so iconic. Actually, many of the cutest and simplest monsters are near the beginning. That's an approach Pokémon would perfect a decade later. The fun visuals contrast nicely with the medieval dialogue. Apparently, Nintendo was trying to make the game more serious, but the knight-speak only makes it funnier. It's a great mix that the series has always kept to a degree. The games are great at never getting too serious or too silly. 

Even the game's more primitive aspects are endearing. I should be annoyed that I have to open up my menu and select a command if I want to talk to someone or climb stairs, but I still find this charming. Maybe it's because there aren't that many people or stairs around so it's not that frequent. I just see it as a fun nod to an earlier time. I'm not as nostalgic as I used to be, but I do get nostalgic for RPG menu screens. The slow pace might turn some people off, but I think it works in context. The relaxed pace and pleasant world help balance out all the stressful battles. I think the only real "this game is old" complaint I have is that locked doors re-lock themselves after you leave an area. Those keys are expensive and can only be carried three-at-a-time, so it can be hard to keep up with which ones I have previously opened. It was still very exciting when I finally found the key store for the first time though. 

No, the minor things don't hurt Dragon Warrior much. I think the only think that could hurt the game's ranking is everything that came out later. Dragon Quest is one of the longest running RPG series, and even with all the spinoff games there is a stunning consistency. The main series doesn't have many black sheep or missteps, so many of the mechanics introduced in Dragon Warrior would be refined and perfected in the years to come. I don't think Dragon Warrior is going to end up being the lowest ranked game in the series, but I do know what's coming and I know just how great some of the games are. 

I played and ranked Dragon Warrior right now as a little reward to myself. I've been stressed lately, and I knew revisiting Dragon Warrior would help. It really is a game near and dear to my heart, and because of this I might overrate it just a bit. You know how I just said it's not even one of the best games in the series? Well now it's my #3 game overall. That's right, I like Dragon Warrior better than The Legend of Zelda. They are both similar games with similar early-NES problems, but for me a game is just better when I can gain levels and buy equipment. I never felt like any time was wasted even if I was somewhat aimless. The Legend of Zelda has a lot of aimless wandering that just doesn't feel as purposeful. Also, Dragon Warrior has better combat. So, the Nintendo dominance at the top of my list continues, and if I decide to play more Dragon Quest games in the near future expect to see a lot more of those too. I foresee good things on the horizon. 

NES Quality Percentage: 23/47 or 48.93%

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G01RKJ7-caaal5lgFfGgPfZRGcqWlv4E3E2E615UYKg/edit?usp=sharing

Atari 2600 #23: Demolition Herby

Developer: Telesys

Publisher: Telesys

Release Date: 1983

Telesys pivoted very quickly from their original strategy of doing uniquely funny games. That's not necessarily a bad thing considering the quality of their first three. Instead, they decided to go with the strategy of so many third-party publishers and just copy an already popular arcade game. The game in question is Amidar. Although not as remembered as some of the other arcade greats, Amidar was one of Konami's most popular and influential early games. It's a Pac-Man influenced game that has the player moving around a grid while collecting dots and filling in squares. It's an addictive game that launched its own subgenre of grid capture games. Pepper II for Colecovision is an excellent example. Atari 2600 saw several variations on the grid capture formula including an official version of Amidar released by Parker Brothers in November of 1982. MobyGames has the release date for Demolition Herby as February of 1983. That certainly sounds like they were trying to cash in on a trend. Thankfully Demolition Herby isn't an exact clone. It makes some changes to the formula which are both positive and negative. At least it keeps up with the Telesys trend of having a funny title, and Don Ruffcorn even used his full name. That's already two points in its favor. Well, metaphorical points anyway. I am not going to start doing a point system for these reviews. 

The biggest difference between Demolition Herby and Amidar is the speed. Amidar is surprisingly slow even in its arcade incarnation. It's a game more about careful planning than twitchy reflexes. Demolition Herby ramps up the speed to an almost frantic pace. The dots are gone making Demolition Herby much more about escaping from danger. You play as the titular Herby being chased by other cars on a perfectly rectangular grid. The goal is to fill in rectangular sections of the grid by driving over all four sides. There are no power-ups to fight off enemies with, but holding down the button will make Herby move even faster. The catch is that turbo mode won't fill in squares and fuel drains faster. If you run out of fuel, you lose a life. The only way to regain fuel is to fill in grid sections. You get a bigger bonus if you fill in two squares at once, and this is basically the whole goal of the game. I appreciate the extra speed, but there is a problem with the design.

Demolition Herby is fast, but this necessitates a somewhat tedious design. Usually, grid capture games will have more varied and interesting maps. Amidar features rectangles of all different sizes and multiple screens. The more varied gameplay helps keep things from geting boring. Demolition Herby features the same shapes set up in the same way forever. This caused me to play every section of every level in basically the same way. Sure, there are enemies to avoid, but they feel more like nuisances than challenges. You can't really do much with them, just speed away. I wish there was some sort of powerup that allowed me to attack the enemies. The games needs about 50% more demolition and 50% less Herby. Alright, so maybe I don't actually have a problem with the amount of Herby. I just want some more variety.

I know that all the Telesys games have been inspired by other games so far, but Demolition Herby is the one that can't hide behind quirky originality. Cosmic Creeps stood out as an original game despite it being mostly a Space Invaders clone. Demolition Herby is a better game than Cosmic Creeps, but the inevitable comparisons to Amidar make the flaws really stand out. I had some fun playing Demolition Herby, but it was a fun that didn't last very long, and I don't think this is a game I am going to take out and play very often when I get the urge to play Atari. Honestly, I liked Fast Food just a little bit better because it was so distinct and had fun graphics. It's that classic battle of burgers vs rectangles. It comes up a lot, but burgers win every time. In this case it's more of a moral victory since they're both stuck in the purple section. They're a couple of middling games coming in at 107 and 108 overall. I can't say what people were doing on Saturday afternoons in 1983 because I wasn't born yet, but I bet there were better things to do than play Demolition Herby. 

Atari Quality Percentage: 9/23 or 39.13%

Atari 2600 #22: Cosmic Creeps

Developer: Telesys

Publisher: Telesys

Release Date: 1982

(At least it has A+ box art)

Oddly this is the second Atari 2600 game I've written about so far that has the word Cosmic in the title and is about futuristic mass transit. That's not something I would have expected. It's not like the word cosmic automatically implies futuristic space busses. Hopefully the other cosmic Atari games explore some different themes. I think I still have about a half dozen to play. Initially I wrote about Cosmic Commuter, which is a game that I played even before I had my own Atari 2600 and therefore has some nostalgia attached to it. For that reason, Cosmic Creeps will always feel like the copycat. That may be a little bit unfair considering Cosmic Creeps is older, but it's hard to top Activision. Actually, Cosmic Creeps is hard to date exactly, and this is one of the things that makes writing about Atari difficult. Nobody was paying that much attention at the time, and so many game companies were gone without a trace before reviews could even appear. I've looked at several sources and they all seem to give different dates for the release of the Telesys games. They might've been released in one big chunk at the end of 1982, or they could've trickled out into 1983. Cosmic Creeps is probably the third game they released, but the serial number implies that it was the second they started working on. I can say that the first three (CocoNuts, Fast Food, and Cosmic Creeps) are very common while the last three (Ram It, Stargunner, and Demolition Herby) are all fairly rare. I'm guessing their first three games didn't sell as well as they expected so they had to cut back on production for the last three. Games like Cosmic Creeps probably didn't give consumers much hope, either. The credits also imply that Cosmic Creeps wasn't thought of very highly. Don Ruffcorn is credited with designing three Telesys games. The other two games have his full name in the manual. In Cosmic Creeps he is cryptically credited as Donyo. I have a feeling this was an Alan Smithee situation, and he was trying to distance himself from the game. There's no way to know for sure, but after playing Cosmic Creeps I can see why it could be true. 

(Putting their name at the bottom of the screen is a good early example of "not the flex you think it is")

Cosmic Creeps is one of those boring Atari games that also doesn't make much sense. If you were to get this game in the wild and try to play it, you would probably die over and over again without accomplishing anything. Of course, you won't feel that accomplished after you have figured out how to play it either, but I'm not going to worry about that too much. I think the developers made it strange to hide the fact that it's very boring to actually play. I call this the Donyo Effect. The game consists of two screens. On the first you have to race from the bottom of the screen to the top while avoiding ambiguous space stuff. Third party games got really random with their graphics sometimes. This part can be tricky because you, the player, are in control. You control when the character pops onto the screen. Be careful because if you push up on the controller you will touch a red barrier and float away forever. It took me a while to figure out that the moving planet on the bottom of the screen determines where the character would pop up. It can still be tricky because sometimes there are tiny bits of red that are easy to miss, and there are also what appear to be comets flying by. However, complete your arduous trek to the spaceship at the top of the screen and you are rewarded with a very appropriate prize: nothing whatsoever. That's right, you earn no points for completing the first half of the game. That is pure laziness during an era where high scores were everything. Would it have been so hard to include a timed bonus or even a preset number of points? Even just an arbitrary 100 points would've been somewhat satisfying. This screen is confusing, overly difficult, and pointless both figuratively and literally. 

(Maybe it's called Cosmic Creeps because of the way the aliens slowly creep up the screen)

The second section of the game is where the action is because it actually lets you shoot at something and earn points. It now plays like a stripped-down Space Invaders with a couple of aliens chasing after a child moving up the screen. If the child makes it to the ship without being captured by the alien or taken out by friendly fire, then you get 1500 points. Don't worry though. If you accidentally shoot one of the space children, they are merely "bopped". I'm not sure what that means, but at least the people who wrote the manual cared enough to make sure their video game didn't have you unintentionally murdering children. This part could be fun if there was a bit more to it. The aliens don't do anything except move up the screen, and they are large targets. I had to make myself not shoot at them to see what would happen if they made it to the top. My game was over, but it never happened organically. I just stayed in one spot and shot aliens until time ran out. I must've done something wrong though because the manual says the game continues if you get 5000 points before the sun sets, but I achieved that almost every time I played, and it was still game over. I tried to find a YouTube playthrough but of course they all last about three minutes and don't help much. I know it must be true because the Twin Galaxies high score is over 180,000 points. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, but I could never get a game to last longer than that single round. I didn't really mind my game ending though, because I couldn't really see it getting much more fun. The manual states that there are never more enemies on the screen, so all they could do is get faster. That's not much of an extra challenge.

So Cosmic Creeps is a dud. The premise isn't terrible, but they took the easiest path in both sections. The first section is completely pointless, and the second is boring. It quickly becomes a game of staying in one spot and shooting a lifeless alien. Space Invaders was already five years old by the time Cosmic Creeps came out, and even the Atari version had a whole screen full of ships that actually shot at the player. Instead of adding to the Space Invaders formula, Cosmic Creeps subtracts almost everything. It's a dull game. In fact, it is so dull that it is going to make apologists happy. It's going into the subset of Atari games that are worse than E.T. It's the third one so far, but it is the first I have ranked that was widely released in the United States. Inca Gold and Birthday Mania are much worse, but I highly doubt anyone in the U.S. had played them in the pre-emulation days. So, fear not E.T. fans. You can at least tell younger generations that Cosmic Creeps was a real game that was worse. For those keeping score at home, it is 152/171 on the overall list and 20/22 on the Atari 2600 specific list. Maybe Telesys should just stick with arcade clones and space shooters. Those are usually successful. 

Atari 2600 quality percentage: 9/22 or 40.9%