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

Genre
All
Action
Adventure
Puzzle
RPG
Simulation
Sport
Strategy

Year
All
Pre-1982
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Post-1996

Letter
All
#
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

Rating
All
0
1
2
3
4
5
6

Reviewer
All
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

Licence
All
Commercial
Shareware
Freeware

Company

Game Name

Main Page

Systeminfo

Apps

FAQ

Site

MS-DOS

Amiga

SNES

Editorials

Crew

Help Us

Links

Forum


Support:

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

eXTReMe Tracker
Blödtris (PC)

Other Reviews:

none


Related Links:

none

Post Link:
Site Name:
URL:

Comments:

Posted by Vemperor, May 8th, 2008:
Three Points for a laugh? A strange sense of humour...
It even does not really fit into the "game" category...

Posted by Mr Creosote (Profile), May 8th, 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.

Posted by Elwood, May 8th, 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. :)

Post Comment:
Name:
Password: *
Guest Password: 9EvdN
Comment:
* You can use your forum password here. If you're not registered, just use the password displayed below the field.

Rules: No error reporting, technical support questions and game requesting here. If you want to post something along those lines, consider using the forum.
««« Back to Review