Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Classic Games (Games) Games

Meet The Programmer Behind Atari's Legendarily Bad Videogame 'E.T.' (thehustle.co) 57

An anonymous reader quotes The Hustle: Once the most highly coveted game developer -- a hit-maker with the Midas touch -- he had been immortalized as the man who created E.T., the "worst" video game in history. But Howard Scott Warshaw's story, like that of Atari, is a parable about corporate greed and the dangers of prioritizing quantity over quality... His first game, Yars' Revenge -- a story about mutated houseflies under siege -- took him 7 months to develop, and went through another 5 months of rigorous play-testing. When it hit the shelves in May of 1982, it became Atari's biggest 2600 game of all time, selling more than 1m copies.

The success of this game netted Warshaw a high-profile follow-up assignment: the video game adaptation of the Steven Speilberg film, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Released in November of 1982 after 10 months of development, this, too, was a 1m-copy seller. Warshaw soon became known as the game designer with the golden touch -- and his success earned him rockstar status. According to press reports, he purportedly pulled in $1m a year and was "hounded for autographs by a devoted cult following of teenagers."

But in mid-1982, Atari had also begun to shift its business strategy in the games department. In its earlier days, Atari gave programmers ample time (5-10 months) to create and develop innovative games. But that window closed when the company realized that the real road to riches was in licensing the rights to films.... The typical game took 1k hours' worth of work over 6 months. Warshaw had less than 36 hours to come up with a concept [for his E.T. game] to present to Hollywood's hottest director. Worse yet, he had just 5 weeks to finish the game... Warshaw's only option was to create a small, simple, replayable game -- something with few moving parts that he could implement quickly. Less than 2 days later, he was standing in a conference room in Burbank, pitching his design to Spielberg: The player would guide E.T. through a landscape filled with pits, and collect pieces of a phone while evading FBI agents.

"He just looked at me and said, 'Can't you just do something like Pac-Man?'" recalls Warshaw. "But eventually, he approved it."

Warshaw then put in 500 hours over the next 5 weeks, "doing everything he could to make something halfway decent in the time he was given," the site reports.

"Unfortunately for Warshaw, the flop of E.T. coincided with a much graver event: The video game crash of 1983. A flood of low-quality, hastily created games, coupled with the rise of the personal computer, led to a moment of reckoning: In the 2 years following the release of E.T., the video game industry saw its revenue fall from $3.2B to just $100m -- a 97% decline..."

Warshaw gave up programming and became a real estate broker, and then a psychotherapist, the article concludes. "But true insiders knew that E.T. was merely a symptom -- not the cause -- of the crash."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meet The Programmer Behind Atari's Legendarily Bad Videogame 'E.T.'

Comments Filter:
  • Smart move (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @08:05AM (#59567100)

    "Warshaw gave up programming and became... a psychotherapist..."

    A very logical move. Many of us who have worked in the software industry have concluded that it is, indeed, a branch of the study of mental abnormality.

    Computers are eminently logical and consistent. If only one didn't have to interact with the human beings who keep infiltrating into the system.

    • by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @08:23AM (#59567136)

      That is what people don't get: Feelings and emotions ARE logic!

      Feelings catch all those things where there is not enough information to be precise about it. (Like damn well *everywhere*.)
      They are also the basis of every logical thought. (Source: Famous neuroscientist Antonio Damasio.)
      And emotions do the same thing for determining your general course of action with an incomplete data set.

      Without them, you'd have to do a statistically significant peer-reviewed double-blind study if the floor is still there, every time you want to step out of bed.
      If you could even determine what you "want"... :)

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Your definition sounds curiously similar to religion. For example, accusing someone of witchcraft and punishing them for it due to lack of explanation of what the so-called "witch" was really up to.

        I agree that emotions/feelings are necessary to guide us, but also that relying on them too much in the face of available information can be a mistake. For example, I "feel" like this casino machine is going to pay out any time, despite statistics showing it's very unlikely.

        • by NagrothAgain ( 4130865 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @12:48PM (#59567580)
          For example, I "feel" like this casino machine is going to pay out any time, despite statistics showing it's very unlikely. Except casino machines aren't random, they're pseudo random... at best. A good amount of effort is spent preanalyzing seeds against the RNG to find ones which will not contain long series of repeating values or patterns of sequences. In addition, many States have laws which require that the machines conform to a minimum payout percentage over a given time period. While this can largely be controlled by the game odds there have to be failsafes to trigger payouts or else the machine becomes noncompliant and has to be pulled from use. The manner in which these are implemented is kept secret, but can include things such as hard coded payout thresholds or switching to preselected seeds which have known "poor" sequences. The end result is that if a machine sees heavy play and lower than normal payouts for a long period of time, it actually does become more likely that it will start paying out especially towards the end of its legally defined payout time period. Simply put, casino machines don't strictly adhere to normal statistical models. And while physical gambling methods tend to adhere more to statistics, irregularities in physical designs can in some cases lead to less than random results.
          • by qubezz ( 520511 )
            How can complete fallacy be +5? A machine that has paid out less than normal is not evidence that it is ready to pay out big. Past events do not affect the future on gambling machines, and if they were to, then it is more likely that the machine is broken in a way it will continue to pay less. If they were intelligent, it is more likely that the machine knows it has enticed a sucker with its early trickle of wins and is now in take-them-for-all-they've-got mode.
            • by narcc ( 412956 )

              Really? He went in to great detail to explain why the "gamblers fallacy" does not apply to certain kinds of gambling machines due to the laws in some states.

              His claims can all be independently verified.

          • there have to be failsafes to trigger payouts or else the machine becomes noncompliant

            What jurisdictions require that? "Forced payouts" were certainly not required when I was developing gambling machines in Australia, and would likely have been considered illegal.

            The random number source is verified statistically, yes, and the payout percentage is determined by the reel layout or equivalent, but the analyses of these was all the regulatory authority wanted to ensure the punters would get the average payout that the machine was certified for.

            • And I developed slots here in the States, and you're completely, absolutely 1000% correct, the RNG is verified statistically, the payout percentage and hit frequency are completely determined by the reel layout, and the OP is *absolutely* talking out his ass.
        • I agree that emotions/feelings are necessary to guide us, but also that relying on them too much in the face of available information can be a mistake.

          Don't confuse prejudices with emotions. If someone has a prejudice about doing/not doing something -- i.e. a fixed idea -- even though they undoubtedly have an emotional framework that supports it, it is the fact that it is an invariant idea not amenable to updating from evidence that makes is harmful, not the emotions associated with it.

          The essential thing that emotions do is allow us to attach values to outcomes.

          Is a decision that gets you an ice cream cone now, but creates an not insignificant risk to yo

      • Also, motivation. Why do you work in the software industry? Why do you build your own electronics? Could it be because you "like" or "enjoy" doing so?

        Dystopian stories where people have been modified to have no emotions don't seem logical to me, because they still involve people going to work in the morning and raising families. To me, it doesn't make sense to do anything if I don't feel anything. Of course, we often do less enjoyable things for work if it enables something nice in the long run, but the

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Computers aren't that logical or consistent because they are designed by humans. Most CPUs have some weirdness somewhere, and older ones that were not built from HDLs especially so. Actually even when HDLs became standard people often came to rely on certain behaviour only to discover later that it wasn't guaranteed or part of the test suite when the silicon gets revised.

      Then you have stuff like the Rowhammer attack which relies on physics and the way the electrical side of the system was designed.

  • Have you played Big Rigs Over The Road Racing?

    It gets that same title.

  • It's been fixed (Score:5, Informative)

    by narcc ( 412956 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @08:44AM (#59567160) Journal

    Back in 2013: Fixing E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial for the Atari 2600 [neocomputer.org]

    Howard was given a copy on cartridge at the dig in New Mexico.

  • ET was a good game (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Arthur, KBE ( 6444066 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @09:28AM (#59567216)
    I think a of the hate is internet bandwagon jumping by people who probably never played it. It was a good game and was competently programmed. It was my favorite 2600 game by FAR, and I didn't realize there was any controversy until web sites started with their monthly ET hate story. ETs problem was it was different from the format of other 2600 games like space shooters, and this requires you to read the manual. If the original Zelda came out at the same time, it would have met the same fate as ET.
    • Did the internet bandwagon exist when Atari buried tons of the cartridges in landfills over abysmal sales and reviews?
      • Why don't you trying playing it today and decide for yourself, rather than parroting critics and journalists.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          rather than parroting critics and journalists.

          Just because one agrees with critics and journalists doesn't mean they're "parroting" them. I was able to play ET all the way through with my cousin, then we put it away and went back to games we enjoyed more. That's not to say people like you who enjoyed it are wrong, but you can't pretend the dislike came from nowhere just because you don't agree. It was critically panned on release, long before the internet was in every home. Almost unanimously, from what I remember. A lot of us played it anyway, because

        • I tried playing it recently, for the first time. It was very different than most games I know (the fact that you can do different things based on where you stand), and it had shitty collision detection. I do agree that it's not as worse as people make it out to be. Hell, I'd probably prefer it over some RPGs and other interactive movies pretending to be games.

        • I've played it. Found it rubbish and boring. Are you going to dismiss me now as one of those critics you hate?

          People can have opinions. The biggest turds in history are praised by some. You like the game then more power two you. I along with critics regret the time I wasted playing it.

      • by Tempest_2084 ( 605915 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @10:29AM (#59567298)
        They buried all those ET carts for the sane reason they buried the Pac-Man carts. They over produced them to secure a discount and guarantee the chip factory would give Atari priority. ET sold alright, but it would have had to sell almost two cartridges per 2600 to get through that stock. Atari's executives knew this, but didn't care.
        • They fully expected to sell a load of 2600 units as well during the holiday season. Why they did is beyond me, considering that the market was more than saturated, but hey, it's probably be a really cold day in the red guy's lair when I understand the logic of C-Levels.

      • Oh you must be talking about the great video game crash that happend at the same time and was mentioned in the article.

      • if you're a 2600 collector you'll see it constantly. If the carts were in landfills that wouldn't be the case.

        Atari made more ET carts than there were 2600s, assuming folks would buy an Atari to play ET. That might have worked actually, but there was a huge economic crash right as ET was being released. That meant stores got stuck with a lot of video games they couldn't sell. Back then focus groups and market research were in their infancy, so retailers just assumed the game fad was over and stopped sto
        • Ah but the there is a twist. In the 80ies, Nintendo approached Atari to distribute their console in America, they originally didn't want to do it themselves. Atari said no, the rest is history...

          One would think people learned their lesson, but alas. In the 90ies it was Sony that approached Nintendo, for a CD console add on for the SFC (SNES), even a couple prototypes were made (found and repaired by some youtuber) this was the Playstation, Nintendo said no, the rest is history...

          You know the biggest irony?

          • IIRC it was for tax/tariff reasons. That way it could be declared as a toy and not a computer which was cheaper to import.

    • Back in the day, I tried and gave up multiple times to understand the E.T. game. I figured I must be missing something, just couldn't figure out what I needed to do. Never did figure it out. Considering the poor guy's development deadline, it's amazing it didn't crash spectacularly. No wonder he left the industry.

      I spent a lot of time playing Yar's Revenge, though.

      The "game crash" they mention reminds me of the smart phone gold rush of low quality apps. The first people to come out with 99 cent apps th

      • This was my experience and sentiment precisely.

        I still have one of those joysticks with Yar's Revenge and composite video out. At one time it hooked up to an HDMI converter for the kids to enjoy.

    • See also: Nickleback hate. They have a good song or two and are no worse than the generock you hear on the radio nowadays. But hating them became some weird meme.
    • True, it wasn't really an awful game. It was complicated (which was quite unusual for an Atari 2600 game), it was quite monotonous (which was anything but unusual for an Atari 2600 game), but in general it was by no means any worse than many other Atari 2600 games.

      My guess is that it got its title simply because it happened at the same time as the market crash. Much like the Dot.Com Superbowl ads (and the ensuing lack of response) were not the reason that the dot.com bubble blew up, it merely happened at th

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @09:42AM (#59567234)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @10:01AM (#59567256)
    and as 2600 games go it was pretty good. Decent graphics and sound (you could tell what everything was and it didn't hurt your ears), lots of features. The pits weren't that hard to avoid/get out of. It could have used some polish, but it's not all that bad. It's only problem was Atari over estimated demand and there was an economic crash right around when it released (the effects of manufacturing outsourcing finally hit home hard) and everybody was too broke for pricey video games. And video games were _not_ cheap. Adjusted for inflation it would have been $85-$100 bucks new.
    • The pits were hard to get out of due to the way the controls worked. Frequently you'd levitate out of the pit only to plummet back down into one when switching screens (which would switch up your control scheme). It took a lot of work to figure out how to transition from the side-scroller viewpoint to the isometric viewpoint.

      • I say technique. The behavior was perfectly consistent and once you got the hang of it you could do it every time. If you could just hit a button and be out of the cave the game would be boring. Back then getting gameplay into a 2-4k cart was hard.
        • All they had to do was not have any control scheme that would lead you to re-enter the pit once you figured out how to get out of it on the side-scrolling portion. Just keep you afloat, and let you drift past the edge and onto solid ground. That was it. It's not like you were falling back down for lack of energy either (once you ran out, it was game over). There shouldn't have been any way to have an "oops" and fall back into the pit once you levitated out. It was a terrible design on what was supposed

          • by narcc ( 412956 )

            Just keep you afloat, and let you drift past the edge and onto solid ground.

            That was exactly how it worked.

            • Except for that once back on the map, when your head comes down, if you're facing the wrong direction it touches the pit and you fall back in. Or if you left the pit in the upwards direction. If the game had just always put you safely to the side of the pit, it would have been greatly improved.
    • by Megane ( 129182 )
      They estimated demand badly on Pac Man as well. Supposedly they created more Pac Man cartridges than they did consoles to play them on. But ET got the fame (or infamy) because of the landfill event.
  • by AbrasiveCat ( 999190 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @01:59PM (#59567730)
    SO, it sounds like testing of software is good for the final product?
    • SO, it sounds like testing of software is good for the final product?

      I wouldn't know about that, but I am certain that testing is terrible for time to market ;)

    • That's why today it's been done so widely. Every single customer is a beta tester.

  • by Malays Boweman ( 5369355 ) on Sunday December 29, 2019 @03:15PM (#59567900)
    Same with Pac-man. Download the "Pac-man 4k" rom to see what could've been had the programmers been given more time. Couple this with market saturation of many different incompatable consoles, and you can see why the VG market crashed.
  • I often wonder what happens to "old" software engineers. Their numbers seem to keep halving the older they get. I have seen some become sheep farmers, cosmetologists, or whatever. Interestingly this person did not go crazy in the end but rather someone to help us all after doing too much software engineering. A psychotherapist. Maybe he could specialize in treating burnt out software engineers. Good experience.

    • Like anything else, you have to love what you do, or you quit doing it. I enjoyed writing software, but long days in an office no longer appealed to me after a while. Money wasn't as important after a period of time, as much as enjoying life was. That happens to a lot of people who change jobs. This isn't new or unusual. You roll with what makes you feel happy and do what you need to in order to make the bills. I have worked in transport for 23 years since leaving the software field, and I don't miss
  • ... what was so bad about it, exactly?

Don't panic.

Working...