Taz-Mania

[Assman]

How anyone can think that level approaches anything resembling fun is beyond me. It's just trial and error memorization bullshit; how is that fun? It's unplayable garbage to me.

If that has you cursing 'god damn it', what'd the other lvs make you say?

Still 'god damn it', just in a somewhat quieter and less exasperated tone. I could actually manage to tolerate the game up until that point.

Sub-par platforming I can handle, but not... whatever the hell that mine cart level is supposed to be.

[DarkDragon]

I hated the mine cart level but I still like the game overall.

[The Jackal]

Horrible game; music, level design, everything. Taz in Escape from Mars is vastly superior to this waste of plastic.

[DarkDragon]

Horrible game; music, level design, everything. Taz in Escape from Mars is vastly superior to this waste of plastic.

Graphics were awesome so thats cancels out the musc. Other than the mine shaft, the level design was fine. The factory, the ice part, the jungle, it was all enjoyable. If you had played this game back in 1992 as a 12 year old you would have appreciated this game a lot more trust me. Its so easy to play it as a adult in modern times and nitpick all the flaws and call in rubbish. Is it a top 10 Genesis platformer, no but saying its worthless is way too harsh IMO.

[StarMist]

How anyone can think that level approaches anything resembling fun is beyond me. It's just trial and error memorization bullshit; how is that fun? It's unplayable garbage to me.



Still 'god damn it', just in a somewhat quieter and less exasperated tone. I could actually manage to tolerate the game up until that point.

Sub-par platforming I can handle, but not... whatever the hell that mine cart level is supposed to be.

I never had any trouble with the mine carts; I don't recall having to memorise it beyond what's normally done in videogaming. I certainly wouldn't judge it more irritating than, say, the waterfall ascent by logs in the Lion King. My impression was of the jungle-ruins lv being the worst due to the most blind jumps and general inability to spin without flying off the bluffs.
Yes, 'tolerate' is the word.
@ DarkDragon = I did play this when it came out; beat it then; picked it apart then. Nor has it improved with age. Its flaws aren't of the nitpicking order.

[DarkDragon]

I know exactly what you mean when you're talking about the blind jumps and inability to spin without flying off the bluffs and all I can say is that I do remember being fustrated by those parts but I didnt let it ruin my overall enjoyment of the game. Maybe I was just blinded by the pretty graphics I dont know. I think the game has great presentation, personality, charm, and wit to it and maybe thats why coupled with the graphics is why I'm willing to overlook the fustrating parts. I dont think it completely plays like bleep. Control is definately an issue, in some parts more than others, but to me its not "unplayable."

[hipposticks]

I like the game. It has some pretty nice graphics in some levels (ice river, forest, rapids, ruins). Yes it has cheap deaths but it doesn't bother me. Maybe it just comes down to which games you played most back in the day (I owned Taz), but I would rather play Taz than RKA, Aladdin, The Lion King, Castle of Illusion, etc because they also have their fair share of cheap or inappropriately hard sections, in my opinion. I'm generally not interested in nor good at platformers though, except the ones I owned back in the day, including another one which everyone hates: Bubsy.

[StarMist]

Won a Genny of doubtful cleanliness the other day and this was the cart I used to test it.
No, the machine did not commit suicide. ... And for those of you still in suspense neither did I. My apologies.
It remembered me this thread and so here I am. I stand by what I said below but want to temper those statements, or if possible this thread's general tone of malevolence, by asserting that there's no way this is a below average 16 bit title. Not even close. It's not cheaper or more memory dependent than the majority of 16 bit games, and besides there are plenty of games prized for those qualities (Gaiares eg, or moving up a gen, RSG). The biggest killer for me was and shall remain the ear infecting noises Taz makes when hit and that cue certain enemies' approach; however, these are mostly brought upon oneself by bad play, so are eliminated once the game's frustrating sections have been learnt. Also, whilst a 3/4 overhead view would have been far more suitable, it does decently represent the nature of the cartoon. So, granted the theoretical average game gets a 5/10, the reviewer's 7/10 isn't completely insane; neither are Dark Dragon and hipposticks.

[Thenewguy]

This is one of the worst platform games of the entire 16-bit generation, it has no redeeming qualities, its a total mess.

2/10 (at least its completable, isn't buggy, and some of the graphics are passable)

[Olls]

The people that really believe this crap deserves anything above a 4/10, are the same people that think graphics make a good game.

[Barone]

Graphics were awesome so thats cancels out the music.

Awesome nonsense statement. Will add it to my signature some day...

Won a Genny of doubtful cleanliness the other day and this was the cart I used to test it.
No, the machine did not commit suicide. ... And for those of you still in suspense neither did I. My apologies.
It remembered me this thread and so here I am. I stand by what I said below but want to temper those statements, or if possible this thread's general tone of malevolence, by asserting that there's no way this is a below average 16 bit title. Not even close. It's not cheaper or more memory dependent than the majority of 16 bit games, and besides there are plenty of games prized for those qualities (Gaiares eg, or moving up a gen, RSG). The biggest killer for me was and shall remain the ear infecting noises Taz makes when hit and that cue certain enemies' approach; however, these are mostly brought upon oneself by bad play, so are eliminated once the game's frustrating sections have been learnt. Also, whilst a 3/4 overhead view would have been far more suitable, it does decently represent the nature of the cartoon. So, granted the theoretical average game gets a 5/10, the reviewer's 7/10 isn't completely insane; neither are Dark Dragon and hipposticks.

Since the "average" of all 16 bit titles must include the whole EA catalog, OK, maybe you're right.
But this game is below mediocre in terms of controls and feels very generic IMO.

[Thenewguy]

Yeah its definitely not "average" or "mediocre"

Take a look at the sound for instance, its not uninteresting, bland, unnoticeable, or forgettable, which are hallmarks of mediocrity, its actually noticeably annoying, and irritating, it makes you want to turn the volume down, its memorable in how bad it is.

Gameplay wise, a mediocre game should be generic, lacking in original ideas, have uninteresting level design etc, if Tazmania controlled acceptably, knocked out 60% of the blind jumps, the quicksand etc, then it could pass as being mediocre, because what you would be left with is competent level design with no original elements, and no flair in its stage design, though to be honest I think there would still be a bunch of other problems with the gameplay, such as the speed attack/numerous jumps dynamic, so even with the aformentioned improvements I think it would struggle to be 5/10

[StarMist]

Yeah its definitely not "average" or "mediocre"

Take a look at the sound for instance, its not uninteresting, bland, unnoticeable, or forgettable, which are hallmarks of mediocrity, its actually noticeably annoying, and irritating, it makes you want to turn the volume down, its memorable in how bad it is.

Yeah but as I said the frequency those annoying effects arise with diminishes as one learns to play the game; they chiefly consist of Taz's injury and that weird electronic spoon rattling in an electronic pot sound that certain approaching enemies conjure: learning not to get hit all the time will solve the former, learning how to dispatch enemies quickly will solve the latter.

Gameplay wise, a mediocre game should be generic, lacking in original ideas, have uninteresting level design etc, if Tazmania controlled acceptably, knocked out 60% of the blind jumps, the quicksand etc,

Taz controls acceptably; not too well but acceptably. Blind jumps are merely an exm of memorisation based gameplay, you don't knock Contra Hard Corps for the same thing? They're indeed less guaranteed an instant kill than surprise bullets and sorties are in a game where any enemy contact whatsoever equals death since it is possible to have a lucky safe landing. Furthermore Taz is more generous in lives than most hardcore games Contra or not. The quicksand is just an obstacle; I for one don't see games improving by the elimination of their obstacles. Somebody who watches cartoons can verify whether as I suspect it's also a noted feature from the show. His spin move is awfully wild but at the same time that wildness is his character trait, you wouldn't (meaning 'one', it's clear you would) want him whirling in place like some tame top. It's rather too wild for my tastes but I never watched the show and am not arguing the game to be good; for a real Taz fan (remember that target audience) it may well hit the thematic mark, which would make up for its mechanical shortcomings. Plus spinning whilst jumping enables some massive leaps that can be exploited to skip large dangerous sections when one knows them.
If the average--not mean, a theoretical avg--16 bit game is to be considered a 5/10 Taz gets the same. Otherwise show me your notion of games that fall in the 3 to 6 range. Oh yes and the 2s as that's what you rated Taz.

@ agostinho = apart from the 2P disadvantage you really think this game that much worse than Dinosaurs for Hire? How so?

[Thenewguy]

Blind jumps are merely an exm of memorisation based gameplay, you don't knock Contra Hard Corps for the same thing?

Contra Hard Corps is twitch gaming with logical enemy attack patterns, and tactics, virtually everything in that game can be dodged with the skid, and if you keep your distance + skid then most boss attacks can be worked out without losing more than a couple of lives, it may be 1 hit kills, but you also respawn on the spot, whilst Taz-Mania is a mixture of health bar and 1 hit kills (based on hazard type), but puts you back to a checkpoint.

The two are nothing alike at all, if you die in Hard Corps you think "damn I was a bit slow" or "damn I was unlucky", you don't think "the designer of this game is a dumb prick" like you do in Taz-Mania when you happily stroll along and then get blown up by a bomb which has been put directly in your way that is completely invisible due to being purposefully obscured by the background, or when you think "oh! I wonder where this water jet takes you" stand on it, and it slams you into 1-hit kill spikes. I swear I've landed on the water jets before and fallen straight through them to an untimely death on multiple occasions too.

They're indeed less guaranteed an instant kill than surprise bullets

Surprise bullets can be jumped, or dodged with a skid, you can't dodge surprise bomb's which are literally invisible to sight, not until you make a note of their placement.

sorties are in a game where any enemy contact whatsoever equals death since it is possible to have a lucky safe landing.

If you play the game properly its impossible to be killed by landing on a soldier in Hard Corps, you need to learn to fire downwards I'm afraid

Generally being killed by touching a soldier in Hard Corps has nothing to do with trial and error, it just means you aren't good enough, they take next to no shots, can be dodged easily, and can be shot from above when you jump them. The main trial and error problems I guess would be being shot by a stray bullet when you're in areas full of soldiers, and the level bosses which fire a lot and move with speed, as I've said before you can minimise this a lot by simply taking note of your surrounding, and dodging until you work out the attack pattern, where it comes to the soldiers you don't need to be wary of them at all if you have homing, just run through and dodge the bullets whilst homing makes sure the screen doesn't fill.

The worst part of Hard Corps IMO, is actually just the first 20 seconds of gameplay.

If the average--not mean, a theoretical avg--16 bit game is to be considered a 5/10 Taz gets the same. Otherwise show me your notion of games that fall in the 3 to 6 range. Oh yes and the 2s as that's what you rated Taz.

a 1/10 I would say would have to be broken (Ie so buggy is uncompletable), I already talked about what I would deem a 5/10 (something which is a bit dull and uninspired essentially, but doesn't particularly do anything glaringly bad), so I would say 1 or 2 glaring problems, and uninspired gameplay puts you into 4/10 area, Taz-Mania doesn't have "1 or 2 gameplay problems" it has a whole bunch of serious issues, not to mention the whole level design is poorly thought out in general, and the music is atrocious on top of that, so IMO it has to be 3/10, or 2/10.

@ agostinho = apart from the 2P disadvantage you really think this game that much worse than Dinosaurs for Hire? How so?

Taz-Mania makes Dinosaurs for Hire look like a work of a gaming genius, Dinosaurs for Hire doesn't really do anything glaringly badly at all, its music is half alright, its graphics are half alright, there aren't tons of leaps of faith forcing you to repeat the same section over, and over, there's not hidden hazards which damage you, etc.

[Barone]

@ agostinho = apart from the 2P disadvantage you really think this game that much worse than Dinosaurs for Hire? How so?

Yes, I really think.

Let me try to quickly build a list of appointments:
Graphics:
-Since the title screen you can see how just a few colors are used in Taz-Mania; Dinosaurs for Hire is much better in this aspect, even more if you're using composite output to "produce" more colors given its heavy using of dithering.
-Taz-Mania backgrounds are plain, ugly and dull; they look very cheap and uninspired. Dinosaurs for Hire's backgrounds are more vivid, usually containing neat little animations here and there; full of details.
-Enemies' sprites are waaaay more detailed and well designed in Dinosaurs for Hire, to not talk about of their variability or quantity in a single level.
-The scrolling feels a bit choppy in Taz-Mania.
-Taz-Mania's HUD looks like something OK for a 1990 game.
-Dinosaurs for Hire do some good usage of parallax.


Sound:
Much closer in this department but I still think that Dinosaurs for Hire has the edge due to its sfx.
The music is very repetitive in Dinosaurs for Hire but the instruments are not so annoying and generic like the one that I find in Taz-Mania.

Gameplay:
-The Taz's jump just feels wrong. It's not only a level design thing, it's just bad.
-Level design is really subpar in Taz-Mania while in Dinosaurs for Hire it's just mediocre.
-Enemies are totally stupid in Taz-Mania; the main contest is always against its poor controls.

Dinosaurs for Hire's theme is cheesy but it does present some story and tries to set you in a proper "world". Taz-Mania has nothing, it's just cheap and cheap.
It's not that Dinosaurs for Hire is great, it's just Taz-Mania being another really bad and cheapo game.
Taz-Mania is about as bad as those Chester Cheetah games.