Hello guys, today I am going to review Pac-Man for the Atari 2600. It is pretty obvious how to play, eat the video wafers, (yes, that's what the instruction manual calls them, VIDEO WAFERS.) power pills, and vitamins. (seriously? vitamins? why not use fruit?) But he's not alone, there are 4 ghosts, and they might look like the're the same color, but they're different colors. You can't tell because they are flickery as heck. The graphics are awful, the sounds are awful, the controls are awful, and it is the reason the Crash of 1982 happened. If you want to play Pac-Man for the 2600, play Pac-Man 4K, 8K, or the Ms. Pac-Man hack. Definitely pass on this and play a good Pac-Man home port.

I actually own the original A2600 Pac-Man game, but I have only played it once because it's not in very good condition and you'd have to be pretty lucky for it to actually run.

See, you do a fairly good job of pointing out the flaws, but I don't know if I would necessarily call this a "review" of the game. A key to a good review is visiting a variety of aspects of the game, hence how Vizzed has you rate the graphics, sound, etc. You do this to some extent, but few details are provided, with the exception of the graphics.

The flickering is enough to drive almost anyone nuts, and to be honest, I'm not sure why the developer(s) decided to publish the game in that state. I never even realized all the ghosts are of different colors until you pointed that out. Additionally, something that may shock you, Pac-Man is far and away the bestselling game on the Atari 2600 with 7.7 million sales (compared to Pitfall's 4.5m). How does this happen when it probably gives seizures and everyone gets a headache from it?

What makes the depth worth a 10 and the overall score worth a measly 1? When evaluating depth, one must first understand what gives a video game its content. Pac-Man may be played forever, since it's score-based, but that does not give it depth. There is one screen in the entire game and absolutely nothing deeper than the basic gameplay. As for the overall score, 1 is very harsh. The game's pretty bad, yeah, but it was pretty creative at the time. If you took the average of your graphics (4), sound (1), and addictiveness (3), which is still going to garner an unreasonably low rating, you'd get a 2.6.

Blaming this game as one of the reasons the video game crash of 1983 (it's not '82) is a bold and uneducated statement. There were many reasons the crash happened, and this game is not one of the causes, for a very obvious reason: This game did not cause the crash, it was affected by it. Atari produced many copies of this game because it sold so well at first, but after the market crashed, this game immediately started to fail. So, in short, when you blame this game for crashing the market, you're really getting it backwards.

The industry didn't crash because the games were bad. The main reason is that is crashed because of too much competition. There were many, MANY consoles on the market, which divided video game fans among themselves and caused each company to gain much less revenue. Another major cause was because personal computers started to emerge in the market. Not only could they play video games, but they could also run simple applications and make working from home much easier.

The word "review" doesn't really describe your post, it seems more like a... bashing of the game, if you would. Of course, this game is pretty awful in the first place, so I can't really blame you for that.

Probably would have worked to your advantage if you explained why each of these things are as bad as they are, however, none the less this review made me laugh. Thank you for that.