Techtite's What Went Wrong --- When Entertainment Goes Awry!

Good ideas, good qualities...BAD flaws; that's the trouble with many promising entertainment products: tv, movie, video, and games. Some of these titles really did seem to have it all, yet failed anyway, because of a few big mistakes. This regularly updated page examines such titles.

Montezuma's Return

(PC Game; Utopia co., 1998)

Retreads of classic video games are common. After all, there are so many classics to choose from : Tempest, Sinistar, Asteroids, Centipede, and Frogger have all been revamped in some fashion for '90s game systems and/or PCs. One of the less successful re-treads, however, was Montezuma's Return; very anticipated, yet in the "bargain bin" in mere months. What went wrong?

Well, first, let's be objective, and compliment the title a little, by mentioning...

What Went Right? For one, graphics. The game's 3dfx mode has all the bells and whistles in use, without a glitch in sight. Characters are either completely different or at least with different textures each level. Realistic lighting casts spotlights on walls coming from moving platforms. The game even uses a few bump-mapping effects for anyone with a Voodoo2 or 3 graphics card; each piece of gravel shows a certain degree of roughness. You can almost feel the notches in wood, the cracks in old cement, and the harshness of the concrete.

It also had huge levels; 9 regular ones, plus nine bonus levels. Each level might not be as snazzy as those in Tomb Raider, though is often as large. If it wasn't for its flaws, it definitely could have caught the eye of a few Lara Croft explorers. It's humorous nature might have also attracted the MDK crowd.

Last (but not least); this game has a feature that most games do not; an actual ending! If you can tolerate the game's flaws (coming up next), the persistant gamer is rewarded with an imaginative, 39 meg, happy conclusion. It's also rather humorous and fun; similar to the ending of Mario 64 or Banjo Kazooie on the Nintendo 64 system. Too bad it wasn't more like those games; otherwise, the following gripes wouldn't need to be said...

What went wrong? For one, the game engine uses first-person perspective. This is a major design snafu for a game that relies on so many jumping puzzles. First-person is best for games like Quake, where aiming and targeting is important. However, for a game that relies more on jumping to teeny platforms (a la the original Montezuma's Revenge), being able to see your character's feet is a must. When all Monty can do is punch and kick, there's no reason to have a first-person perspective at all, and using it was a bad idea.

Adding to this annoyance is the fact that there's no decent save game feature. This annoyance reaches fever pitch, thanks to an element of arcade gaming that should never be saluted; limited lives(!). You find yourself going through areas one, two, three, four, and five, only to die three times at area six. The only solution after three lives? Play again from the very beginning of the whole, loooong, entire level. YAWN!

Warning to game designers: Don't ever use limited lives. This was an arcade-game concept of the '80s, used entirely to a)Get the arcade teen to pop in more quarters, and b)make sure he finishes quickly, to make way for the next player. This sales tactic has no place in home gaming at all. Period.

This opens a curious question. Is it too peculiar to wonder if these guys spent more time on planning Monty's demise, than his success? Well, let's look at the cutscene videos within the game. While a mere 8 are "victory" scenes, 27 are of animated death sequences. Even worse, morbid animations drag for as long as 22 seconds, while victory sequences are often 5 seconds at best. This for a game with no save game feature and a life limit. Final result: too many chances to see the main character lose, and not enough that show him actually win...

Warning to game designers: Death is never fun. Don't spend too much time trying to make death fun; that's impossible. Instead, concentrate on worthwhile rewards for a job well done. Duh, right? Well, one can hope that's obvious!...

Even getting hit once can be annoying. Why? Get hit hard enough and you see stars rotate around your head as the screen tilts all over. Played for laughs, a "coo-coo bird" sound is heard. The problem...? During this cutesy-animation, you can't punch, kick, jump...you can't protect yourself! While you're trying vainly to prevent seeing a 22 second death scene --again-- the game freezes the action, forcing you to see it eventually, anyway. You wind up forced to see the cutesy-poo coocoobird "dizzy effect" again and again and again, as a boss enemy kicks your butt to the far jungles, again and again and again, only to see the Monty-died-again cutscene, again and again and again.

Warning to game designers: cutesy-poo injury animations --like Super Mario scratching his head and saying "Mama Mia!"-- are only advised when the character can revive himself with several power ups nearby. It's also best that such an animation is not normally followed with having to start a gigantic level right from the very very beginning. There's nothing "cutesy" about that!

This is just a sample of Montezuma's biggest flaw: ambiguity in game design. This is a game that could have been a cult success as a PC Super Mario 64 clone, yet fell prey to the desire to compete with the Quakes and Unreals. The result is contradictory. You die in molten lava, only to have a cutesy graphic try and make instant death look fun (showing this same "cutesy" lava clip every time you fall in the lava is just plain overkill). Enemies are drawn mostly for laughs, yet kick your butt across the room. If they wanted a Quake clone, they should've added more methods for defenses. If they wanted a Mario 64 clone, they should've made the game less death-intense, without "life limits," and more, well...fun. If they wanted a Tomb Raider clone, complete with huge levels, they needed a save game feature. Without any of the above, what can be said...?

Given how much I loved the original game, it truly is a shame to put its remake in "What Went Wrong" status. This game would have made it into the "Bargain Bin Binge" section if not for its grating flaws. The truth is, though, if it wasn't for its flaws, this 1998 release wouldn't be in the bargain bin at all. 'nuf said.

What Went Wrong is an analysis column, used only for entertainment. It is not endorsed by the companies mentioned, nor is it meant as the definitive report as to "what really happened." It is meant as an analysis column (by an experienced online entertainment critic) as to what might have happened, based on all the many similar scenarios where "everything looked so right."

All text, Title graphics, and pix not of reviewed product, are created by Techtite, copyright 2000; all rights reserved. Screen captures (if any) are only for the purpose of review, and by no means represent any affiliation with Techtite and the distributors of that product. For further "legalese" & disclaimers, click here...

What Went Wrong?

An Analysis Entertainment Column, by Techtite

Montezuma's Return

(PC Game; Utopia co., 1998)