Andrew Oliver: "The Dizzy games were rubbish"

edited October 2006 in Games
I think he's going to regret saying this when they start trying to reissue the old games and/or issue a new game in the series:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=69109

"It was only fun in those days because it was kind of novel; nobody had seen little characters moving round the screen," Oliver said. "Quite frankly, you put that stuff on now, and people go, 'It's rubbish' - well, actually, yeah. I've got fond memories, but it's a bit embarassing when you look back at it."

I also think he's selling the games short. It wasn't novelty that sold the Dizzy games, there were loads of similar games at the time, but the Dizzy ones had a consistent fanbase over many years.
Post edited by udgoverload on

Comments

  • edited October 2006
    That's a bit of spin if ever I saw it. He doesn't actually say the Dizzy games were rubbish at all. Read the actual interview at http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=20571 and you'll see it's a fairly generic comment about the bedroom coder days.

    Dizzy rocks. :P
  • edited October 2006
    AndyC wrote:
    He doesn't actually say the Dizzy games were rubbish at all.

    Yes he does, look what he says at the end:

    "It was only fun in those days because it was kind of novel; nobody had seen little characters moving round the screen. Quite frankly, you put that stuff on now, and people go, "It's rubbish" - well, actually, yeah, I've got fond memories, but it's a bit embarassing when you look back at it."

    He says he agrees with people who say it's rubbish, and he thinks it's embarassing when you look back at it.

    He's wrong though, people didn't buy Dizzy games because they were little characters moving round the screen, loads of ?1.99 budget games had that. People bought Dizzy games because they were fun to play.
  • edited October 2006
    Going back to the days when I bought SU, I seem to recall a lot of negativity surrounding the Dizzy games, the reason for which I could never discern.
  • edited October 2006
    Yes he does, look what he says at the end:
    Yes but in context it's clearly a reference to 8 bit games in general and not specific to Dizzy.
  • edited October 2006
    He should ask kids of today what they think - my 8 year old daughter loves playing the Dizzy games on Speccy or CPC emulators.
  • edited October 2006
    Yes he does, look what he says at the end:


    He is definitely talking about 8-bit bedroom coding in general, or at least in how it is presented in the original article. I think eurogamer have definitely taken it out of context just to make the article seem more interesting.

    Personally, I never enjoyed the Dizzy games much but I know a lot of people did.
  • edited October 2006
    If he said that about 8 bit programming and they also deny the distribution of their games, I only can say he is the typical ex coder that shows he is really dumb.I am sure that the games he is doing now are actually more crap. (if they still write games)
  • edited October 2006
    Actually, Andrew Oliver himself is perfectly happy for his games to be on WOS, but he doesn't own the copyrights.
    http://www.worldofspectrum.org/showwrap.cgi?permit=individuals/OliverTwinsThe.pmt
  • edited October 2006
    gasman wrote:
    Actually, Andrew Oliver himself is perfectly happy for his games to be on WOS, but he doesn't own the copyrights.
    http://www.worldofspectrum.org/showwrap.cgi?permit=individuals/OliverTwinsThe.pmt
    At the end of that letter he has his URL (well, back in '99) and someone seems to have "taken over" the URL and has garbage instead (GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS).

    Oh, well. Wonder what happened to the company/URL? ... then again not really as I'm not even going to bother Googling it.

    Oh, fine ... I fell for it and found this but it's also defunct:
    http://www.int-studios.demon.co.uk/

    Skarpo
    :-)
  • edited October 2006
    Bit of a shot in the foot there. Anyway, Dizzy games were very interesting and had a great span of playability and longevity. Well... maybe not longevity after you finished them... and the egg was a bit unruly... but it was nice :D
    http://www.luislima.science/arcade = The Arcade Club for enthusiasts :)
  • zx1zx1
    edited October 2006
    To be honest i was never really a fan of Dizzy but i wouldn't say they were rubbish, the only one i liked was Treasure Island Dizzy, but they sold by the truckload. I think there was a remake on a console a few years ago but i might be wrong.
    The trouble with tribbles is.......
  • edited October 2006
    I've got fond memories, but it's a bit embarassing when you look back at it.

    Wrong. An unlucky statement (even about 8-bit games in general)

    only those one could be done with 3.5mhz and 48kb's of memory. We can clearly say that today's games are also rubbish compared to future systems/games. But you know this is also wrong. Idea is count, not graphics or speed.

    Dizzy *and many others* were not rubbish. Especially Treasure island dizzy *is* amazing! I'm still playing action force II. Remakes of those games are being made now by many people.
  • edited October 2006
    I think you stroke the point Arda. The whole concept of remake is that a game is so playable that survived the passage of time. :D

    I was never a BIG fan of the games, but I can see the good programming, the structure, etc. Considering the limitations of the day, it's also shameful that these games still have remakes whereas modern games, which have 100 000 times more memory available, still come up as crap many times
    http://www.luislima.science/arcade = The Arcade Club for enthusiasts :)
  • edited October 2006
    "Quite frankly, you put that stuff on now, and people go, 'It's rubbish'

    Erm, no. Actualy, they go, "Oh, cool! I love this game!" Works every time.
  • edited October 2006
    Here's what Andrew says about modern games in a recent interview:

    On red tape:
    "The agents, accountants and lawyers take real interest [in games development]. Everything has to be checked and approved, and sometimes it feels like these places employ "No" men..."

    On Advertising:
    "It's going to be a lot more common to see adverts in games. I think this area is about to get very big and will provide valuable extra money for development."

    On Graphics:
    "If we want to compete with movies, which we do, then we MUST look as good as they do..."

    On image rights:
    "Some companies may see the value of having their products placed in games and actually pay to have them included. [This] starts to limit what you can do gameplay-wise."

    And the future:
    "The possibilities for games [more so now than in the past] are enormous and very exciting. Within this next generation we will start to see visuals approaching real life quality. The huge costs involved will unfortunately hamper originality and creativity."

    If that's the brave new world of next generation gaming, then I'll stick to the 8 and 16 bit era for my fix, thank you very much :)
    THE RETRO GAMER IRC CHATROOM. EVERY SUNDAY AT 9PM BST. LOG ON USING THE LINK BELOW:
    https://discordapp.com/invite/cZt59EQ
  • edited October 2006
    Well I've just read both articles and to me he's simply saying that if you put a 8bit game in front of a kid from the Xbox/Playstation generation then many of them will say that it's crap. He isn't saying that the dizzy games are crap he's just saying what todays teenagers etc think.

    I know this because I first got into emulation and retro gaming whilst still working as a school's IT Technician and I would regularly have yoofs saying "what's that it's shit ha ha ha".

    We must remember not everyone out there likes old games
  • edited October 2006
    I like the Dizzy games, but then I like many speccy games purley because they remind me of fond memories of my Grandad, Grandma, Mother ane Father, only one of which is still alive today :-(.

    I remember taking Dizzy 1 with my Rubber keyed speccy when I stayed at my dads house once.

    I also remember Treasure Island Dizzy when I had a 128k toaster with AY sound, it was a New Years Eve and I completed it, it reminds me of my Grandad who was amazed that a small computer could do so much stuff, it was mind blowing to him...

    Ahhh, memories..... Nostalgia etc...

    I even bought the Dizzy collection on the CD32, Big 6... still have it.
  • edited October 2006
    Spector wrote:
    On Advertising:
    "It's going to be a lot more common to see adverts in games. I think this area is about to get very big and will provide valuable extra money for development."

    As he would well know, seeing as Blitz Games (the Oliver Twins development house) is behind those new Burger King games.
  • edited October 2006
    I think you stroke the point Arda.
    Where's Mel with some smutty innuendo when you need him. :lol:
  • edited October 2006
    O.K. I'll say it 'Dizzy is crap'
  • edited October 2006
    I got the a couple of Dizzy games as a kid. Although I never got into them too deeply...

    They were well designed, but just a bit booring.... the only one I did enjoy was Fast Food Dizzy....now thats my kinda game :D
    Calling all ASCII Art Architects Visit the WOS Wall of Text and contribute: https://www.yourworldoftext.com/wos
  • edited October 2006
    i loved all the dizzy games, and so did all my mates.
    there was something about helping a plucky little egg about that appealed to me.
    used to play the first one for hours on end, never really getting anywhere but still having a cracking time.
    me and my brother used to try to work out the puzzles together. good times.
  • edited October 2006
    From what I gather, Mr Oliver is of the opinion that games are so much better now because the technology that drives them is much more advanced. Yeah, modern games are great if you like 3d FPS, or big licences that lack depth and thought. Take a look at The New Super Mario Brothers - it hasn't strayed greatly from the original formula, but it's a superb game none the less.

    Okay, there were bad games back then, but they were probably no greater in number than some of the rubbish games put out today on modern platforms. Will he say that todays games are embarassing in 20 years time? Who knows. And are games any less novel today than they were 20 years ago? I think not.

    Just my 2p worth ;-)

    Regards,

    Shaun.
  • edited October 2006
    mile wrote:
    used to play the first one for hours on end, never really getting anywhere but still having a cracking time.

    Pun intended? :D Surely it was a bit eggscruciating... :lol:
    I never make misteaks mistrakes misyales errurs — oh, sod it.
  • edited October 2006
    robert@fm wrote:
    Pun intended? :D Surely it was a bit eggscruciating... :lol:

    no-egg the-egg wasnt'-egg intended-egg. :) -egg
  • edited October 2006
    eggif yeggou eggare geggoegging teggoo speggeak eggegg, eggit's beggetegger teggoo speggeak eggit preggopeggerly :P
    Oh, no. Every time you turn up something monumental and terrible happens.
    I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
    --Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)

    https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
  • edited October 2006
    VincentAC wrote:
    eggif yeggou eggare geggoegging teggoo speggeak eggegg, eggit's beggetegger teggoo speggeak eggit preggopeggerly :P

    Sounds like some wacky lyrics off a weird eggsperimental progressive 70's albumen.
Sign In or Register to comment.