NES #41: Fox's Peter Pan and the Pirates

Developer: Equilibrium

Publisher: THQ

Release Date: January 1991. Dang, just missed Christmas

If nothing else, Fox’s Peter Pan and the Pirates is a good nostalgia bomb. It takes me back to the golden age of weekday cartoons. I was obsessed with cartoons as a kid, so I’m lucky I grew up in the days when regular broadcast tv would show cartoons both in the morning and afternoon on weekdays. Some of the best cartoons from the era were on during weekdays. We got classics like DuckTales, Tiny Toon Adventures, and Batman: The Animated Series. Most of the weekday cartoons had NES counterparts, but of course THQ wasn’t going to get one of the good ones. While most of the big licenses went to Capcom and Konami, THQ was left with one of the worst and least remembered of the early 90s weekday cartoons. I remember that my brother enjoyed the show while I didn’t like it at all. So there was always a bit of conflict of what we were going to watch in the afternoon. We had to alternate days, but if the bus dropped me off too late my parents would let him keep watching Peter Pan and I would get super upset. But I am going to play this game with an open mind even if it does bring up conflicts from the past. Besides, I love playing old video games based on obscure franchises. So, did THQ finally release a game that is at all playable?

(The whole show is Peter getting fooled by grownup tricks)

 

The answer to that is a relative yes. Before you get too excited, however, be warned that this is not going to break THQ into the good column. However, it is playable, and it feels like a real NES game that some effort was put into. The developers decided to keep it simple and made it a side scrolling action game. The gimmick is that you have to take out a certain number of pirates in every level before reaching the end. I’m so used to avoiding trouble in these old games that I had to remind myself to fight sometimes. There’s not much variety here. There are only a couple different types of pirates, and they either shoot at you or sword fight with you. Still, it’s nice when a game gives you a reason to actually experience the levels. Peter can fly in the game, but his flying power is limited, and restoring items don’t respawn if you die. They compensated by giving Peter a leaping jump that can clear just about any gap. This can still lead to trouble, however. If you die near the end of a level and have already collected all the items, it can be hard to make your way back. It’s not as bad as in Rocky and Bullwinkle, but it’s still annoying when your character’s defining trait is so limited. Of course, in the cartoon Peter’s defining trait was his obnoxious smugness which is almost 100% absent from the game. At least they got something right.

(One thing this game has in common with Citizen Kane is that they both feature pterodactyls) 

Sadly, the laziness shines through if you play Peter Pan long enough. The main problem is the level design. Individually the levels are okay, but there are basically three designs that get reused over and over. And I don’t mean the graphics get reused, but the actual platforms and structures. I can hardly tell the difference between some of them outside of the background colors. The pirates may be in different places, but I certainly got some deja vu playing through it. At least in the first half of the game they alternate between caves and forests. The last three levels, however, are basically identical ship levels. Perhaps they thought five-year-olds in 1991 wouldn’t get that far, but it really is lazy programming. One of my pet peeves in NES games is repetition. It was fairly common for level motifs to get repeated later in games. I don’t know if I’ve ever played another NES game that basically had the same level three times in a row, however. That takes repetition to the extreme. I also dislike how the goal at the end of the ship levels is somewhat unclear. In the earlier levels you just walk to the edge of the screen and the level ends. In the ship levels the edge features the curved front of a ship and a gap in front with open water. What you have to do is stand on the little edge on the front of the ship, but even after I figured this out, I would sometimes miss. You can fall right into a crocodile’s mouth if you’re not careful, and there’s nothing worse in this game than dying right at the end. There are probably no health items left making it very hard to get back. You might as well reset if this happens. If the developers knew what they were doing this wouldn’t have been possible. Sadly, even with a bit more polish than the other THQ games, the cracks still show. This is still lazy shovelware made to promote a lousy cartoon.

(Rendered in beautiful Action 52 Green)

 

Well Fox’s Peter Pan and the Pirates almost broke the top 100. That’s a minor victory for a THQ game. Of course, the games in the upper half of the list are getting better and better so perhaps the news isn’t quite so bad. On the NES list it is #28 out of 41 which really is the buffer zone between the pretty good and straight up bad. I have one more famously bad THQ game left to review plus a handful of more obscure games, so perhaps I’ll get through this journey with my sanity intact. I just hope the quality percentage doesn’t suffer too much. Hey maybe I’ll go completely off the rails and review LJN games next. I might as well do all the bad game first, right?

 

NES Quality Percentage: 21/41 or 51.21%

Ranking List.docx

NES #40: Wayne Gretzky Hockey

Developer: Bethesda Softworks

Publisher: THQ

Release Date: 1991

 

In the retro era of gaming, it was common for big-named athletes to endorse mediocre games. Gaming was still in its infancy, and attaching a real-life name to your game added a level of legitimacy that might be hard to find with a more generic title. It was a time when absolute icons sprung up on video game covers all over the world. I already wrote about Magic Johnson’s Fast Break which was a bland game only made interesting by Johnson’s interjections into the action. I’m sure for the publishers, however, the quality of the game didn’t matter that much. It was all about the cover star. The concept could be so lucrative that companies would take it to ridiculous extremes. Cubs legend Ryne Sandberg appears on the cover of Bases Loaded 3 but not in the game itself. He has nothing to do with it aside from posing for the picture. I loved Ryne Sandberg as a kid, and it was disappointing to find out he was just a model. Being a kid is full of disillusioning moments like that. I imagine hockey loving kids who played Wayne Gretzky Hockey felt a similar disillusionment. It’s more proof that Bethesda had no business developing games for the NES.

If you were a computer gamer in the late 80s than you would probably remember Wayne Gretzky Hockey as a bit of a classic. It garnered good reviews and positive press for Bethesda. The console version came out three years later, and it showed how difficult converting games to the NES could be. It is generally regarded as one of the worst hockey games of all time, and it’s hard to disagree. I will say that I am no hockey expert, so I have always enjoyed the simplicity of NES hockey games. There’s nothing wrong with simplicity in games when it’s done right. There’s a reason people still fondly remember Ice Hockey and Blades of Steel. Well Wayne Gretzky Hockey doesn’t want to be a simple arcade hockey game. It wants to be a complex hockey simulation. Unfortunately, somebody forgot to put in the complexity. Instead, we have a game that feels more like a demo than a full-fledged game. It has the slow, deliberate pace of a simulation game and absolutely nothing else. And when I say nothing, I mean nothing.

 

I should’ve known something was up when I tried to navigate the confusing setup screen. Nothing should be easier to navigate than an NES setup screen. But this ends up being the most complicated part of the whole game. The buttons for changing options and changing pages seems to change at will, and I only got through it by chance. I could barely figure out how to pick teams, which can be somewhat important. Some of the options didn’t even make sense. You can change the difficulty of both your team and the computer’s team, but I’m not sure what these change in the actual game. Just to confuse things further there is an option for game type which includes practice, normal, and playoff. All these options do is give the games slightly more rules. You can only play one game no matter what you pick, so this is a deceptive choice. Also, you can make periods last up to 20 minutes, but this seems more like a punishment. So, you played video games instead of doing your homework tonight? Well, I’ll let you play video games, but only Wayne Gretzky Hockey for hours at a time with no breaks. Maybe you’ll think twice before skipping your homework next time.

So why did I spend so much time talking about the setup screen? This game annoys me so much I feel like I could write a whole page on every aspect of it. That would give me two whole pages. There’s not that much to it. The other thing that annoys me about this game is actually playing it. You can tell the developers worked hard to make every part of the game equally lazy. There’s only one bland rink and everything is rendered in a dull shade of blue. Even the referee is blue. It is a true top-down presentation to the point that you can’t see anyone’s face. They are just helmets with sticks. There is a list of player names at the beginning of games, and these may represent real players, but it doesn’t matter. They all play exactly the same. Even the much older Ice Hockey made sure to have different types of players. The only difference teams have is their colors, and sometimes not even that much. If you make the mistake of picking two teams with the same colors than you won’t even be able to tell which is which. That’s not good! Even the on-screen displays are messed up. The clock is shown on an in-game scoreboard which means that if you skate too far to the side you won’t know how much time is left in the game. Of course, the amount of time left is always the same: far too much.

 

And don’t even get me started on the sluggish gameplay. Well actually do get me started. That’s the whole point of the blog. Anyway, the gameplay is about as slow and simple as it gets. The player can control exactly one skater, and I couldn’t figure out if there was a way to change to a different one. Either that choice is impossible or unnecessary. The defense and goalkeeping are pretty much left up to the AI, so your main objective is to occasionally get the puck and try to score. It’s a hockey game that almost plays itself. And shocker of shockers the AI is bad as well. Sometimes one of my players will get the puck and just skate in a circle with it. The computer players never bother to skate over and stop him even when they are losing. I guess they’re just as tired of this game as I am.  It’s a good strategy for winning though. You just make one goal before the computer does, pass it to an AI player, and watch him skate in a circle until the period ends. I don’t think this is a rare occurrence either, and I’d love to see it happen in the first minute of a 20-minute period.

You know, I’m starting to think it wasn’t such a good idea reviewing all these THQ games in a row. Couldn’t I have done a Mega Man series review instead? I am the one who picks what games to play after all. I suppose it does get some of the lesser games out of the way. I try not to think about the fact that if I’m ever going to get a true picture of the NES library, I’ll have to review over 700 more games. It’s exciting, but if I want to get through them all I’ll really have to step up my production. Anyway, Wayne Gretzky Hockey is bad. I’m well past wanting to think about it anymore.  In fact, on further inspection it’s the bottom of the bottom. It’s now my lowest ranked NES game at #40 out of 40. And it’s way down at 154 on the overall list just above Panic!. That makes it the second worst major console game I’ve reviewed so far. I’d say that means there’s nowhere to go but up, but I’m not so sure anymore. It may just be bad game after bad game from now on and I go completely crazy. At least you’ll be along for the ride.

 

NES Quality Percentage: 21/40 or 52.5%

NES #39: The Great Waldo Search

Developer: Radiance Software

Publisher: THQ

Release Date: December 1992. Just in time for Christmas!

 

 

You have to admire Waldo’s creator Martin Handford. He sure knows how to make the most out of his pictures. There aren’t that many original Waldo books, but there is a ton of Waldo media, much of it using the same pictures, or at least settings, from his classic early books. I loved those pictures as a kid though, so I didn’t complain too much. Still, I wish there had been more. This game is called The Great Waldo Search, so if you’ve read the book, you already know what the levels are going to look like. Actually, I’d say this is the most accurate book adaptation on the NES. It does slightly edge out The Adventures of Tom Sawyer anyway. This time around THQ would go with a different developer. Instead of Bethesda, they went with the lesser-known Radiance Software. They only have a half dozen credits ending in 1993, and The Great Waldo Search may be their most famous game. Bethesda, meanwhile, would use the lessons learned on their previous THQ trio and regroup. They would stick to PC for most of the decade, first producing sports and licensed titles then moving on to Elder Scrolls. The next Bethesda developed game to end up on console would be Morrowind on X-Box in 2002. Now if that’s not a comeback I don’t know what is.

Despite their lackluster credits, I will say that Radiance Software certainly got some things right. The main upgrade is in the graphics. The game is full of big, colorful sprites which look just like the originals. Actually, they might look a little too much like the originals. They are basically the pictures from The Great Waldo Search except that they move slightly. The characters don’t move much, but they will blink, and some of their actions, like spraying water through hoses, are even animated. You could say with their limited-motion pictures that they predicted modern e-books for kids, but that’s probably giving them a little too much credit. They also fixed the timer this time around. There is a new countdown in every level, and there are also hidden clock extenders scattered around the levels. It’s very welcome having more things to find in a hidden picture game. The focus is more on points with bonuses given for finding Waldo quickly, making few mistakes, and finding hidden point icons. There is even a mini game where Waldo’s dog rides a magic carpet which actually fits in with the overall game. Be wary, however. It is a better game than Where’s Waldo?, but is still has some glaring flaws.

 

The Great Waldo Search has the oppose problem of Where’s Waldo?. The Great Waldo search is almost too large and detailed. Finding Waldo is just too easy, even on the hardest difficulty. Even the expanded gameplay which involves finding a scroll in every level doesn’t make the game much harder. The entire game can be finished in about ten minutes, which is unacceptable even for a children’s game. It’s a bit easier to see why Where’s Waldo? had a few weird non-picture levels thrown in. The only way to make Waldo visible on a tv screen is to make him too big to hide. I suppose you and your family could take turns and see who could get the highest score, but The Great Waldo Search just isn’t engaging enough to be played arcade style. Sure, I gave Donkey Kong a rave review even though it can be technically beat in five minutes, but that game is fun and exciting no matter how many times you play. Also, while the game uses the same pictures from the book, they are simplified. As a kid I could stare at those wonderful pictures for hours and find new things. It just doesn’t happen in the video game. At least Waldo moves around and doesn’t just hide in the same spots he did in the book. I’m the type of person that still remembers after all these years.

 So, The Great Waldo Search is a well-meaning game that just falls a little flat. It’s not quite the egregious cash grab that the other THQ games for the NES have been, but I’m rating it against every game ever made, not just the ones from the same publisher. So, it is going in the middle of the purple section, because it is an okay game. It’s #112 overall, which isn’t too far from the top 100. For the NES list it’s #30. I’m really starting to get a lot of NES games reviewed. I’m already sad about running out, but I have over 700 to go so I should probably get over it. It’s nice to know that not every THQ game is one of the worst on the console, but I might keep reviewing them since I'm on a bit of a roll. Will one of them break into the good section? Usually when I say that I actually know the answer, but this time I honestly don’t. Hopefully I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

 

NES Quality Percentage: 21/39 or 53.84%

Ranking List.docx

NES #38: Where’s Waldo?

 Developer: Bethesda

Publisher: THQ

Release Date: September 1991

 Hey look, it’s early Bethesda again! And it’s the worst publisher of NES games, THQ! Also, for the trifecta of bad gaming omens, it’s a licensed title. If you were a kid in 1991 than you probably remember Where’s Waldo? being a pretty big deal. I was a big fan as I had most of the books, watched the cartoon, and even ate the pasta. It seems like I would’ve been on board with a video game adaptation, but I almost feel like these THQ games materialized out of thin air years after the fact. Nobody liked them, nobody played them, and it’s amazing to me that both Bethesda and THQ managed to become such big players in the video game industry after getting off to such a bad start. But hey, there’s always a chance that they could make a good game. Where’s Waldo? seems like it could be a good game. You’re not stuck on a page in a video game. It could lead to bigger maps. Also, Waldo could appear in all different places. There are endless possibilities. Maybe this game cracked the code. Okay I’m just giving you false hope now. Yeah, this game is bad. It’s even lazier than Home Alone. Bethesda was one of the worst developers of the 8-bit era, and Where’s Waldo? stands as one of their many nadirs. In the early 90s they were Ed Wood. Somehow just a few years later they started making Elder Scrolls games and became Stephen Spielberg. It was a good choice. So what is this game like? Well the fact that it took me longer to write this paragraph than it does to play through it should tell you something.

 Okay so it’s only that quick on easy mode. Easy mode is nice because it actually feels fair. It has a nice big cursor and a Waldo that actually kind of looks like Waldo if you squint. Oh yeah, get ready to squint. Instead of Martin Hanford’s big colorful drawings we mostly have tiny, indistinguishable humanoids. At least I think they’re mostly humanoids. They could really be anything. It’s very bad when you can’t tell what anything is in a hidden picture game. 80% of what’s on screen looks like it could be Waldo. It’s not like he’s any more well-defined than anything else on the screen. You might see a striped shirt here, a red hat there. They’re all stick figures anyway. You really have to rely on all of Waldo’s trademarks together. It’s the combination of red hat, striped shirt, blue pants, and cane that tells you which one of these thinned-out scarecrows is the real Waldo. That might be okay if Bethesda played by the rules. What do you want to bet they decided not to?

 

I keep trying to find a funny, clever way to talk about what really sinks this game, but even the words have failed me at this point. Maybe I’ve just played the game too much, but I’m feeling fatigued and just want to get this review over with. The only thing that makes finding Waldo feel even remotely doable in this game is locking on to his color scheme. You’re basically looking for Waldo’s clothes draped over a faceless mannequin. Bethesda ruins any chance of playability whatsoever by making Waldo change color in the different levels. Yes, not only are you looking for a stick figure, but you’re looking for a green stick figure without any warning. He seems to take on the colors of what’s nearby in the levels, so I don’t know if this is an intentional design choice or just bad programming. Did they want chameleon-like blending, or is it just some sort of programming flaw where whatever object put in that particular place takes on that color? Maybe there’s a red-and-blue Waldo in there somewhere trying to get out, because sometimes he would look fairly normal. Other times he’s a stripey green blur. I thought we were playing Where’s Waldo? when in fact we were playing Where’s Green Smudge. I only found Waldo in hard mode by pure intuition. Sometimes I would see something that would set off the Waldo receptors in my brain. It didn’t always work, but since actually looking for Waldo was even less reliable, I had to do something.

Also, if the green Waldo doesn’t get you than the mini games will. The way to beat Where’s Waldo? is to finish all the levels before the ever-running timer gets down to zero. There are about half a dozen map levels with a few mini games peppered in. Watching Waldo walk between levels on the map screen feels longer than actually playing the game, but I digress. If you were playing Where’s Waldo? in 1992 than you probably wanted it for the puzzles and didn’t need extra levels cluttering it up. Still, if they made sense than it would be a tolerable mistake. Unfortunately, they can be instant game enders. One has you finding Waldo in the dark which isn’t too bad but isn’t fun either. Another has a slot machine with the goal to match three Waldos. It really comes out of nowhere and is made worse because it is the final level. How many games end with a rocket-themed slot machine that ends the game if you fail too much? Well, Clash at Demonhead is close I guess, but how many of them also weren’t fun before the end? The worst, however, is the infamous Subway level which has you traveling along mazelike tunnels trying to collect Waldo and Waldo accessories while avoiding a villain that I don't recognize. If you land on his square your time will drain fast, and if this happens on medium or hard it’s basically over. It completely interrupts the flow of the game and is confusing for anyone encountering it the first time. You should’ve just designed some good map screen, Bethesda. Everyone would’ve been better off.

 

Oh, and one last thing about writing a Where’s Waldo? review. Having to put so many question marks in the middle of sentences gets old fast. My word processor wants to capitalize every letter after a punctuation mark, so I did a lot of correcting that I wouldn’t normally have to do. Not to mention it just looks bad. You know what else looks bad? The rankings for THQ games on NES. They occupy four slots of my NES bottom five. That’s not good considering they only published 12 NES games in the US. So at least a third of their games are the worst of the worst, or at least the worst so far. Where’s Waldo? isn’t quite at the bottom of the list because it’s at least short. It’s good backlog fodder if you’re a person like me who is obsessed with finishing as many games as you can. Of course, hard mode is a different story, but I think beating it on easy or medium still counts. Hey I’m getting old. I have to start lowering my standards. I just don’t have time for 100% no-death runs anymore. So, Where’s Waldo? ranks at #138 out of 159 overall. The fact that I have played 21 games worse than Where’s Waldo? makes me think I need to start playing some better games. On the NES specific list, it is 35 out of 38. So far, the best THQ game I have ranked is Home Alone. If that doesn’t make you curse mankind’s hubris, I don’t know what will.

 

NES Quality Percentage: 21/38 or 55.26%

(images are from mobygames.com)

Ranking List.docx