![]() And among all the games I’v found in the lot, Battlezone is probably one of the best. This was actually the first item I’ve bought to enter my collection so I can say my collector like begun with this. The arcade game was a big hit and, baside the notable 2600 version, was ported also on Atari 5200, on Apple II, VIC-20, C64, ZX Spectrum, Atari XE/GS, Atari ST and MS-DOS.īattlezone is one of the games I purchased along with the Atari 2600 several months ago. Released first on Aracade and later ported on Atari 2600 it’s a descendant of Tank (1974) even if the direct son of the 70s game is Combat, always for Atari 2600. Let’s be honest, if we are going to have two tanks shooting at each other, how about we add a little excitement to the mix? Maybe some high stakes betting or an audience to entertain.The tanks combat games are some of the earliest games developed and for sure Battlezone is one of the most important among them. After all, at least in war there’s usually some strategy involved. Of course, that might be giving this game too much credit. Watching those two tanks aimlessly move around the screen, shooting at each other with no regard for their own safety, it’s almost as if they’re trying to metaphorically represent the futility of war. War is hell, and so is playing Combat on the Atari 2600. It’s like playing soccer with one leg tied behind your back, while wearing a blindfold, and the only goal is to feel a little bit of joy in this cruel, cruel world. Playing Combat on the Atari 2600 is like playing Russian Roulette, except instead of a gun, you have a joystick, and instead of a bullet, you have terrible controls. (affiliate link) In fact, many Atari 2600 games are one penny on Amazon (actually four dollars, with postage) so I suggest buying a bunch. The best thing about the worst Atari 2600 games is that they are easy to find and cheap as dirt. Add a dash of annoying controls, a pinch of terrible graphics and a handful of no-fun-at-all, and you get the worst Atari 2600 game ever made. This looks so pathetically simple and lazy that you would have to see it to believe it. Nothing in it but two tanks and a border around the edge. There are many game “modes” that change the scenery a little, but from boot-up, the two tanks are inside an empty room. ![]() The tanks are seen from a top-down view and move slower than molasses going up-hill. Why am I turning? Now I’m facing the wrong direction! This game sucks, I’ll just toss this one into the fireplace and play Pac-Man instead, where up goes up and right goes right. What the hell? I wanted to go up! Forget it, let me press the joystick right. Well, let me explain the mind of a five-year-old trying to use tank controls. For those of you who call yourself gamers, tank controls may be a simple concept: move the joystick left or right to turn, move the joystick up to move forward, and move the joystick down to move backward. When I was five years old, I could not for the life of me figure out how to move the damn tank. So what makes Combat the worst Atari 2600 game ever? First and foremost: tank controls. The second tank will just stay in one spot forever. ![]() If one tank shoots the other tank, a counter goes up by one. Pressing the button on the joystick causes the tank to shoot. The left joystick moves one tank, and the other joystick moves the other tank. I will explain really quickly how Combat works: There are two tanks on the screen that look like the letter M. It won’t go away or become less infuriating, no matter how long you stare at it. As a child, I remembered that this game was kind of like a scratch on the side of your new car. It was titled simply, “Combat”.īecause Combat was one of the first nine Atari 2600 games, one could argue that the benchmark wasn’t very high at this point, and there weren’t in-cartridge enhancements, etc. But the worst Atari 2600 game, in my opinion, came bundled with the console.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |