System
Alle
Amiga
Atari 2600
Atari ST
C64
Game Boy
NES
PC
Plus/4
SNES
Vectrex
ZX Spectrum

Genre
Alle
Action
Adventure
Denkspiel
RPG
Simulation
Sport
Strategie

Jahr
Alle
Vor 1982
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Nach 1996

Buchstabe
Alle
#
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Wertung
Alle
0
1
2
3
4
5
6

Tester
Alle
Mr Creosote
Tapuak
Jeff
dregenrocks
Johann67
Little Boy
Vohaul
Vemperor
Adhoc
PhotoTropic
Elwood
Gesh
Eff10
Hoffe
NetDanzr
Dizzy the Egg
Dr. Ramesch
Guzzardo
std
Incise-66
J. Durr
ardell
Wandrell
Looger
Pietoro
Smitle
Zork
Cypherswipe
fretz
sandy21
Jumpman Junior

Lizenz
Alle
Kommerziell
Shareware
Freeware

Firma

Spielename

Startseite

Systeminfo

Anwendungen

FAQ

Artikel

Mitarbeiter

Mithelfen

Links

Forum


Support:

Abandoned Places
The highly unofficial Abandonware Ring
RSS-Feed
Mozilla Search Plugin

eXTReMe Tracker
Blödtris (PC)

Andere Tests:

keine


Weiterführende Links:

keine

Neuer Link:
Seitenname:
URL:

Kommentare:

Geschrieben von Vemperor, 8.5.2008:
Three Points for a laugh? A strange sense of humour...
It even does not really fit into the "game" category...

Geschrieben von Mr Creosote (Profil), 8.5.2008:
Well, how do you rate a game which is just a joke? I had the same problem with Advanced Lawnmower Simulation - it's impossible.

Geschrieben von Elwood, 8.5.2008:
Ah ah - I waited for this discussion, but I do think I am prepared to enter it. So here's what I thought:

1. The game is a satire on Tetris-clones. It is SUPPOSED to mock them.
2. The game totally meets the standards it aims at. There are no flaws, no bugs.
3. This game is supposed to give you a good laugh.
4. It will fail to do so if you are not into Tetris-clones.
5. I am. I laughed.
6. So... let's look at the ratings:
-> 0/6 (total crap, not worth to be in existence): Doesn't fit in my opinion, I already stated why it's worth to be in existence.
-> 1/6 (has something to it, like professional production values, a somewhat nice idea behind it, but is in the end not seriously playable): The "seriously playable" part let me think. But if this game WAS seriously playable it would totally fail at what it's meant to be, so this cannot be it.
-> 2/6 (not that bad; certainly has some redeeming value, but also very serious flaws which, at least at some point in the game, make frustration or boredom overwhelming): See... the game does not have any flaws. This rating is impossible.
-> 3/6 (good game, definitely worth playing for longer than half an hour, but absolutely nothing special to it - a game made 'by the book'): Okay well... this does not meet either. But going higher would mean recommending this game as a "must have" which it simply isn't either.

Conclusion: The ratings below 3/6 were impossible to give because the game is what it is supposed to be. So it had to be 3/6. Which does NOT mean everyone will like it. :)

Neuer Kommentar:
Name:
Passwort: *
Gastpasswort: 0wbQQ
Kommentar:
* Hier bitte das Passwort aus dem Forum eintragen. Gäste benutzen bitte das angezeigte Passwort.

Regeln: Keine Fehlerreports, keine technische Hilfe und keine Requests. Anfragen solcher Art bitte im Forum.
««« Zurück zum Test