"It's terrible but I like it anyway" games

General and high profile video game topics.
User avatar
velcrozombie
Posts: 268
Joined: April 12th, 2015, 3:37 pm

Re: "It's terrible but I like it anyway" games

Postby velcrozombie » May 28th, 2015, 11:46 pm

One game that I forgot about until I recently watched the Game Grumps play it was The Three Stooges for the NES. It's definitely a terrible game, but I loved the Stooges as a kid (and still do, to a lesser extent) and put a fair number of hours into it back in the day. The game has a unique structure: you play a small rotation of mini-games to earn money to save an orphanage within a 30-day period (each game or event costing you a day) while trying not to end the game prematurely by getting your hand caught in a mousetrap four times. The game has four different endings (depending on how much money you earn) and some primitive but recognizable voice-clips of the Stooges, and (unlike many games based on licensed properties) the mini-games actually do reference specific Stooges shorts. None of the individual games are very well-designed or even that enjoyable (except Trivia), but the game can be played through fairly quickly and the deadline the game imposes on you (plus the looming danger of the difficult-to-avoid mousetraps) creates some tension.

User avatar
scotland
Posts: 1863
Joined: April 7th, 2015, 7:33 pm

Re: "It's terrible but I like it anyway" games

Postby scotland » May 29th, 2015, 8:41 am

velcrozombie wrote:One game that I forgot about until I recently watched the Game Grumps play it was The Three Stooges for the NES. It's definitely a terrible game, but I loved the Stooges as a kid (and still do, to a lesser extent) and ... the mini-games actually do reference specific Stooges shorts.


As far as I know, this is the only 3 Stooges game there is. Originally made for the Amiga, there was a remastered version of it for Windows a decade ago, but I've never played it. I only know the game from the NES version. The 2012 film (which, sadly, I kinda enjoyed) did not get a video game tie in.

There are lots of IPs that were once really part of the culture, but culture moves on, and the Three Stooges are a part of that. Had the game been made 5 years later, it might have made a decent FMV game, using the b&w clips of the shorts.

Calling Dr Howard, Dr Fine, Dr Howard, calling Dr. Howard, Dr Fine, Dr Howard...

User avatar
velcrozombie
Posts: 268
Joined: April 12th, 2015, 3:37 pm

Re: "It's terrible but I like it anyway" games

Postby velcrozombie » May 30th, 2015, 12:00 am

scotland wrote:As far as I know, this is the only 3 Stooges game there is. Originally made for the Amiga, there was a remastered version of it for Windows a decade ago, but I've never played it. I only know the game from the NES version. The 2012 film (which, sadly, I kinda enjoyed) did not get a video game tie in.

There are lots of IPs that were once really part of the culture, but culture moves on, and the Three Stooges are a part of that. Had the game been made 5 years later, it might have made a decent FMV game, using the b&w clips of the shorts.

Calling Dr Howard, Dr Fine, Dr Howard, calling Dr. Howard, Dr Fine, Dr Howard...


For better or worse, the Farrelly Brothers movie is a step up from any feature film that the Stooges got to star in during their career. Columbia asked Moe to put together a feature film during their prime years, but he argued that it was already a great deal of trouble coming up with enough material to fill a two-reeler and felt that their style of comedy worked better in the realm of short subjects. The new movie has some amusing moments, and Chris Diamantopoulos does a pretty amazing job as Moe.
It's pretty crazy to think that at one point the movie was going to star Sean Penn as Larry, Benicio Del Toro as Moe and Jim Carrey as Curly.

goldenband
Posts: 146
Joined: April 8th, 2015, 10:29 pm

Re: "It's terrible but I like it anyway" games

Postby goldenband » May 30th, 2015, 1:08 pm

Oltobaz wrote:I'll also throw in Sword of Sodan (the Megadrive/Genesis version), brutal and satisfying. It's flawed, it's choppy, it's very basic... it's fun.


Nice to see someone else who enjoys Sword of Sodan! I've taken a lot of guff over the years for being fond of SoS, but mastering the game and working my way up to the highest difficulty was one of the more rewarding experiences of my gaming "career". Obviously it's deeply flawed and sometimes frustrating as hell, but in its own way it's weirdly fair and certainly playable. Plus many of the criticisms usually leveled at it are nonsense: everyone laughs about the crouching attack and claims it's the only way to make progress, but if you're stabbing everyone in the crotch, you're doing it wrong.

I'll even go further and say I enjoyed Dark Castle on the Genesis as well. It's a very weak port of a very dated game, and it's far too short to have any business being on a cartridge. But once you figure out the controls (and they can be figured out) then it's reasonably consistent and perfectly playable. I swore at the game a lot, but conquering it on Hard was satisfying.

(The CD-i version, however, is a different matter entirely...)

One thing both games have in common -- besides being computer ports -- is that they're tough, but short. Something I've come to realize over the years is that the biggest, most unforgivable sin a game can commit is wasting my time. Sure, you get carved up a lot in both games, but it doesn't take long to get back where you were. Give me that any day over a game that forces you to repeatedly replay it for 60-120 minutes to get to a section that's just as cheap and unforgiving as anything in Sword of Sodan.

User avatar
Oltobaz
Posts: 47
Joined: April 7th, 2015, 6:59 pm

Re: "It's terrible but I like it anyway" games

Postby Oltobaz » May 30th, 2015, 7:21 pm

goldenband wrote:
Oltobaz wrote:I'll also throw in Sword of Sodan (the Megadrive/Genesis version), brutal and satisfying. It's flawed, it's choppy, it's very basic... it's fun.


Nice to see someone else who enjoys Sword of Sodan! I've taken a lot of guff over the years for being fond of SoS, but mastering the game and working my way up to the highest difficulty was one of the more rewarding experiences of my gaming "career". Obviously it's deeply flawed and sometimes frustrating as hell, but in its own way it's weirdly fair and certainly playable. Plus many of the criticisms usually leveled at it are nonsense: everyone laughs about the crouching attack and claims it's the only way to make progress, but if you're stabbing everyone in the crotch, you're doing it wrong.

I'll even go further and say I enjoyed Dark Castle on the Genesis as well. It's a very weak port of a very dated game, and it's far too short to have any business being on a cartridge. But once you figure out the controls (and they can be figured out) then it's reasonably consistent and perfectly playable. I swore at the game a lot, but conquering it on Hard was satisfying.

(The CD-i version, however, is a different matter entirely...)

One thing both games have in common -- besides being computer ports -- is that they're tough, but short. Something I've come to realize over the years is that the biggest, most unforgivable sin a game can commit is wasting my time. Sure, you get carved up a lot in both games, but it doesn't take long to get back where you were. Give me that any day over a game that forces you to repeatedly replay it for 60-120 minutes to get to a section that's just as cheap and unforgiving as anything in Sword of Sodan.


Sword of Sodan is where it's at, you Sir are awesome! I need to give Dark Castle a go. Never played it, but I'm sold.


Return to “Video Games General”