Play
Please use a flash video capable browser to watch videos.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Review

The Simpsons Arcade Game Review

  • Game release: February 3, 2012
  • Reviewed:
  • X360

If you have cherished memories of playing The Simpsons Arcade Game, keep holding on to them and ignore this port.

by

There are times when the past is best remembered rather than revisiting. For more than two decades, people have been clamoring for The Simpsons Arcade Game to make its way to home consoles. As part of the trinity of Konami's licensed beat-'em-ups--alongside Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and X-Men: The Arcade Game--it was the only one that had never ventured outside of the dank, smoky arcade scene. And now that it's finally available, it serves only as a crushing reminder that life is unfair.

There is a rudimentary story that serves as your motivating force, and its brevity would make it easy to ignore in similar games, but its slapdash implementation reverberates through every element of this adventure. For reasons that are never explained and make absolutely no sense, Waylon Smithers robs a jewelry store. In his sloppy getaway, he crashes into the Simpsons family, Maggie ends up with a diamond replacing her pacifier, and Smithers nabs the infant as he flees. So, if you're curious why Bart would hit Binky with his skateboard or Lisa would snap her jump rope at a wrestler, there you go. That still doesn't explain why Marge would throw Snowball II at an inflatable Krusty head, but you'll be far beyond caring at that point.

It might seem like nitpicking to poke holes in this hastily compiled story, but this lack of care is characteristic of the way that references to the beloved show are handled. Characters and locations are crammed in with no regard to their own relevance. If you scan the background, you might see Dr. Marvin Monroe at a hamburger stand pushing his wares. Yeah, you might laugh as you point out the now-deceased psychiatrist, but that doesn't make his random inclusion seem any more thoughtful. What's really strange is just how many Life is Hell references there are. The Simpsons Arcade Game was released in 1991, only two seasons into the life of the show, so the developers didn't have access to the nearly unlimited cast that now exists. Instead of being creative, Matt Groening's other property was crammed in to fill the holes, and the inclusion of the one-eared rabbit just feels bizarre in 2012.

Even with the careless integration of references, the licensed elements of The Simpsons Arcade Game are its lone noteworthy aspect. There is certainly some enjoyment in picking out characters from years past. Bleeding Gums Murphy (also dead!) can be seen in the background in one stage. It's cool to watch the saxophone player jam once more, and seeing who surrounds him should please anyone who has spent hours watching classic episodes. The exotic dancer Homer appeared in a photo with can be seen (with two identical sisters?), and it's those brief moments of recognition that push you onward.

Bake 'em away, toys!

It's a good thing the animated cartoon was able to make these characters so likable that merely seeing them can bring a smile to your face. Unfortunately, every idea unique to this game is downright archaic. You (and up to three of your unluckiest friends) take control of Marge, Bart, Homer, or Lisa, and the ability to play offline or online ensures you should be able to scrounge up a partner in a pinch. Each of the controllable heroes has a weapon, so that rapscallion Bart makes deadly use of his skateboard, science queen Lisa wields her jump rope like a whip, Marge cleans up street toughs with her trusty vacuum cleaner, and Homer makes use of his fists. The differences between their attacks may sound large, but in practice, they offer little more than a visual change.

The two-button combat fails to pick up the slack as far as diversity is concerned. You can jump, attack, or jump attack. It's standard stuff that gets old after only a minute or two of knocking down enemies. Certain background items can be picked up and thrown at attackers, though it doesn't matter if you're throwing a loved family pet or a refreshing drink, because the items all act exactly the same. The one dose of flair is that characters can team up to unleash superattacks. Combining Homer and Lisa into a duel-headed killing machine offers some silly fun and is easily the highlight of the stale combat. Sadly, your entire repertoire encompasses only those basic maneuvers, and the lack of deeper tactics means you quickly grow tired of performing the same moves ad nauseam.

There are eight levels to burn through, and the whole shebang can be completed in roughly 40 minutes your first time through. An achievement for a half-hour completion time exists, so you have some idea of just how long this adventure lasts from opening cutscene to scrolling credits. There is a smattering of bonus unlockables, though they add little to the overall package. Upon completing the game for the first time, you gain access to the Japanese version of the game. Levels, enemies, and attacks are mostly identical, though small tweaks (such as how the score is tabulated) do offer slight changes. Otherwise, you can play around in sound or music test menus or look at character art. None of these extras will compel you to keep playing, nor will you get much use out of them once they become available.

Kwyjibo: A big, dumb, balding North American ape. With no chin.

For history buffs, one of the few good elements in this game is its perfect emulation of the source material, though that's faint praise considering this is more than two decades old. Still, although this looks and plays just like the quarter muncher you remember, the presentation is questionable. By default, an arcade cabinet fills in the borders (this isn't widescreen), though it doesn't look like the outside of the original Simpsons machine. Rather, because it lacks the colorful logo, it's closer to an ATM than the arcade cabinet. This can be toggled off and on, and you can also tweak how sharp the visuals are, but that's about it for options. Like the core action, the options and unlockables are severely lacking, making it a wonder this port was released in 2012.

The Simpsons Arcade Game is a fine example of the time-honored expression "be careful what you wish for; you might just get it." Age has not been kind to Homer and the gang, and few modern-day amenities have made it into The Simpsons Arcade Game. It's tempting for those who grew up playing this in the arcade to plunk down 800 Microsoft points ($10) to relive their childhood. But that's a fool's game. Playing this will soil any fond memories you've desperately clung to through the years. This mind-numbingly dull brawler feels like an ancient relic compared to the wealth of new and exciting experiences available for Xbox Live Arcade.

The Good
Plays just like the arcade original
The Bad
Dull, uninspired action
Can be completed in 40 minutes
Weak unlockables
Few modern enhancements
3
Bad
About GameSpot's Reviews

About the Author

Discussion

404 comments
Drkr_Zen
Drkr_Zen

lol His "The Bad" is always, well, bad...

  • Dull, uninspired action - Not a fan of beat 'em ups? Move on.
  • Can be completed in 40 minutes - Its an arcade port. Duh?
  • Weak unlockables - See above.
  • Few modern enhancements. - See this so often from modern gamers... were you expecting Quick Time Events, randomly generated stages and Horde Mode or something?

Donrock12
Donrock12

Why do they even keep this guy on board.  There must be someone at this company that thinks its time for him to go...

zenarcherx
zenarcherx

A 3.0?! Are you serious?

The Bad
~ Dull, uninspired action
~ Can be completed in 40 minutes
~ Weak unlockables
~ Few modern enhancements.

This guy has no sense of what a retro game is...

- - - - - - - - - - -
And "few modern enhancements"
- - - - - - - - - - -
WTF?! You can....

1. play online with 3 other players from anywhere in the word
2. Listen to your own music with just the sound effects from the game

3. Unlock Sound test, Music test, Character guide

4. Unlock and play the rare Japanese Rom.

5. Play with arcade cabinet or full screen modes.

6. Play Survival modes, Unlock Trophies/Achievements.


Seriously man, you have no business reviewing classic games.
Go back to playing COD or whatever it is you do enjoy.

AQWBlaZer91
AQWBlaZer91

It's just a port dude. What kind of lousy harsh writing is that. Tom you Suck.

hjwhitfi
hjwhitfi

classic. i spent like 20 buks in quarters and beat this with my brother and 2 random people at the mall. love it. 3 is waaaay harsh. yay nostalgia

hsyd
hsyd

Dear Tom, Give up Love, Everyone

txgamerwavg
txgamerwavg

Hey Tom, I still love that even my friends still like that game, so grow up.

snxx
snxx

Is just me, or is this page's comment session kinda "locked", not letting you read the old comments and stuck with only the comments from the first page? I see there's 21 pages of comments, but I tried in three different PCs and two different browsers and I just cannot read them. In other pages I can browse the other comment pages just fine... Suspicious.

Elbowsmash
Elbowsmash

@TomMcShea- thanks for once again pointing out the obvious, which everyone understood from the get-go. The problem here, as agreed upon by 95% of those who actually read your piece of trash, is that you are only basing your rating on one of those pieces of criteria, which makes no sense, and is not the most important factor when evaluating ports. Just keep defaulting to your weak, corporate rationalization though as if there isn't a problem here. Also, for your next video review make sure you try to sustain what you call your "journalistic integrity" and "non-arrogance" by including another ball-and-cup scene where your rub your biased opinion in even more. I think you way have one ounce of credibility left that needs to be flushed down the toilet.

AJC3317
AJC3317

this review makes no sense. if the port is perfect then that's all that should matter, the game will be exactly as people remember

TomMcShea
TomMcShea

@SnuffDaddyNZ The beauty of GameSpot's review system is that we tell the quality of both the port AND the game. If you read my review, you can see that the port is flawless, so if that's all that matters to you, you're good to go. For people who want to know if this game stacks up in 2012, I provide that information as well.

linkoot98
linkoot98

Wow, Marge's weapon was a vacuum? Gotta love out of context gender roles...

leeko_link
leeko_link

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

leeko_link
leeko_link

Well this game isn't that awesome but at least it's still fun to play if you pretend you still live in the early 90s. I'll give it a 6/10 at best.

Defy_The_Fallen
Defy_The_Fallen

I'm not one to judge, but why is it Tom Mc Shea's reviews that are always really poor scores? I have nothing against your opinion Tom, you actually made some very valid points here and there in this review, and your other reviews, Skyward Sword included. At least you let your own statements be heard, rather than mingle with the crowd and just follow what they say.

Emandudeguy
Emandudeguy

The caption for this review doesn't fit, it's like it's saying "oh the game was good but this port sucks", and from what you are actually saying in the body paragraphs of the review, you clearly just don't like the game. I played this not too long ago (maybe a few months ago) and still liked it, so I'll be picking this up anyways, thanks for nothing.

SnuffDaddyNZ
SnuffDaddyNZ

Again emphasizes my, as yet, unheard call for reviews of "old school" arcade game ports to rate the quality of the port, NOT the actual game. As far as ports go.... seemed perfect to me?

Tanares
Tanares

@ryan0991: I couldn't agree more. What's more to this is I doubt most of Gamespot was even old enough or tall enough to reach the controllers without a step stool back in '91.

Elbowsmash
Elbowsmash

@valdarez So you are now going to rely on reviewers to tell you what the game is worth? If the price is right? Do you actually take any part of the decision making process when buying a game? Also, money is valued differently by everyone. Rich kids piss in the face of 10 bucks. Poor kids might be more choosy. Either way, tell me about the game and I'll decide if the price is right. I don't need a reviewer for that, especially incompetent ones.

ryan0991
ryan0991

Gamespot managed to contradict themselves before the review even started. Right under the title they tell you to "ignore this port if you have cherished memories of playing it". That implies that they changed something. Then under "the good" they say that it plays just like the original. That is exactly what fans of the original want. No one is going to buy this game looking for a fresh new experience. They're buying it for the nostalgia.

Bozanimal
Bozanimal

[quote="TomMcShea"]But I can't let the feelings of my ten-year-old self get in the way of clear-headed evaluation.[/quote] @TomMcShea - Yes, yes let those feelings get in the way! Don't be afraid of your feelings, McShea. Fear leads to anger, and we all know where that leads. Let's rewind a second: I have no issue with the score. I never liked The Simpsons Arcade game for all the reasons you mentioned, anda 3.0 seems fair. Why would I play it when the X-Men arcade game (I was a Nightcrawler man, myself) and a Neo Geo machine (World Heroes, Samurai Shodown, and Metal Slug: Woot!) flanked it at Playland? The graphics were good, but The Simpsons was terrible then, and it would seem nothing has changed. It was only mildly cool because it had sound clips and art from the show, and that was impressive from a technical standpoint My point was more that I wish it had been written to consider nostalgia for the reasons I mentioned, even if nostalgia is not considered for scoring. (cont'd)

Bozanimal
Bozanimal

(cont'd) Maybe you enjoyed it more because you played it when you were younger, maybe you didn't, but that disclosure adds value for gamers like myself that are considering buying this title but are having a tough time remembering how good or bad it was over twenty years ago. It's for this reason that Gerstmann brought up the nostalgia factor in his review of the [url=http://www.gamespot.com/river-city-ransom-ex/reviews/river-city-ransom-ex-review-6099482/]River City Ransom re-release[/url], and it helps the review tremendously, though it did not seem to affect the score much, in the end. I know many readers here are fixated on the numbers, but I want your opinion and your perspective; nostalgia influences both. [quote="carolynmichelle"]If you're implying that all beat-em-ups of the era are "tired," I respectfully disagree.[/quote] @CarolynMichelle - I'm not trying to imply that, though it does read that way, upon reflection. Either way, I'd hope after all this time you knew me better than that! The Simpsons just happens to a tired 2D side-scrolling beat-em-up. There were a lot of derivative 2D side scrollers at the time, but I still loved Ninja Combat and Turtles Through Time. Heck, I even enjoyed the Aliens Arcade Game. ;)

carolynmichelle
carolynmichelle moderator staff

@Bozanimal "there is no reason to buy a tired 2D side-scrolling beat-em-up for any other reason." If you're implying that all beat-em-ups of the era are "tired," I respectfully disagree. I think plenty of games from the 80s and 90s hold up quite well. Streets of Rage 2, for instance, is a beat-em-up filled with meaningfully varied enemies who employ different tactics, and the three playable characters have significantly different movesets that you need to skillfully employ to successfully complete the game. Taken on its own terms, it's a satisfying beat-em-up despite being 20 years old. By comparison (and on its own terms, I think), The Simpsons is just a dull button-masher.

Some old games are still good; others aren't (or weren't even good at the time, and we just didn't know any better). In my view, there's definitely a basis for evaluating these older games that isn't dependent on nostalgia. And if nostalgia were a factor, then I think a review would be pointless. We'd have to just award a positive score to any older game that people remember fondly, and what would be the point of that?

Talldude80
Talldude80

its just a TOTAL joke that they never cashed in and sold this game on SNES or Genesis. But i liked the demo, enough that I wouldnt give it a 3.0 Maybe a 7, and that's pretty good for an arcade game with little replay value.

TomMcShea
TomMcShea

@ERoBB, We re-review older games with the same standard as every other review because you still have to spend your current time and money with the game. It's being re-released in 2012 so you have to decide if it stacks up against the many choices out there. Many older games hold up fine, many others falter. We tell you which is which. Though, like always, you can disagree with our assessment. @Bozanimal, I did play The Simpsons Arcade Game growing up. I spent countless hours playing every beat 'em up I could get my hands on. But I can't let the feelings of my ten-year-old self get in the way of clear-headed evaluation.

valdarez
valdarez

@Elbowsmash Last thing I'm going to say on this topic as it's in no way conversation worthy. You'd argue with a wall if it were in front of you. A game's quantity and quality (or hoped for quality if you will) is strongly tied to a price point. The company sets the price point and the budget long before the game is ever released. To suggest otherwise is foolish, naive, or based in pure ignorance of how software is developed and released. You're so intent on proving your fallacious point that you're throwing in pricing of a game long after it's release when games do fluctuate in an attempt to drive more sales. That's not even a valid (or honest) argument. It should go without saying that gamers have expectations with regard to quantity and quality with regards to a game based on price point. It should that is.... but of course, there's you. (Valdarez sets up brick wall) - There you go, please use the brick wall for the rest of your discussion, as I'm sure it'll get about as far with you as anyone else does. ;)

Bozanimal
Bozanimal

[quote="tommcshea"]...nostalgia and popularity don't factor into a critical analysis.[/quote] They should; there is no reason to buy a tired 2D side-scrolling beat-em-up for any other reason. Double Dragon, Golden Axe, TMNT Arcade, etc. all offer basically the same gameplay. The only reason anyone would consider The Simpsons is due to: 1 - Nostalgia 2 - A love of The Simpsons It's a shame that this is not viewed through the lens of someone that grew up playing it in the arcade, because that is exactly to whom this is marketed.

Rottenwood
Rottenwood

@Elbowsmash Prices do indeed fluctuate, but for the first few weeks (when a review really matters and is most likely to be used in a purchasing decision) a price shift is unlikely. Ergo, it's a useful part of the discussion. The fact that this game costs $10 and is trumped by a thousand free and/or low-cost browser or indie games is a very valid point worth making.

Sabrewing
Sabrewing

I have to admit, I was most surprised it was only an 18 meg download. Still, having one of my fave Konami beat 'em ups to casually plunk down with after all these years is a real treat. Now how about Sunset Riders?

Elbowsmash
Elbowsmash

@valdarez Understand that the price is something apart from the actual game- it gets attached to the game, fluctuates up and down, can be expensive and inexpensive, but has nothing to do with the game itself. I don't come here to find out what games are worth. I can make that decision myself. Prices should have nothing to do with the review of the game. They should be listed along side the review for the sake of being informative but should not affect the review in any way. Besides, are you willing to have a sliding scale incorporated into every review every time a price drop happens? Oh! Bastion is on sale this week- better bump up the review score a point! Stupid. Seriously, if people need a reviewer to tell them at the end of the review, after hearing about the game itself and all the details whether or not they should buy it based on a specific dollar amount- if they can't make that decision themselves....well, that's really sheepish.

Rottenwood
Rottenwood

@glimpus Actually, there's a third option: McShea is pretty much right, and the only reason he looks like an outlier is because 90% of the people bothering to post here are angry fans demanding retribution. The vast majority of gamers aren't nuts enough to drop $10 on a crappy beat 'em up and kept on walking.

glimpus
glimpus

Well, there's only two real options here. #1 is McShea is pretty darn off with his views on video games compared to the general public, and thus is a pretty useless reviewer or, #2 it's all an effort to generate site traffic. Either way it's not right.

stncldrwg
stncldrwg

Plays just like the arcade original. This alone means it's worth buying.

ratboy72
ratboy72

On a plus note, I now know who's reviews I can ignore.

ERoBB
ERoBB

@Tom Mc Shea thanks for the response, but if all of that is true, then I question Gamespot's decision to review arcade re-releases. You simply can't review a 20 year old game with modern criteria just because it's been released on a new platform. It's not a new game in any sense. Nothing warrants a new review, except it's release. I wonder if you would cross your arms and scoff at Hitchcock's The Birds BluRay re-release because the special effects were bad. Would you give that film a 3/10 and cite modern review philosophy when people disagreed? Or would you judge the film on the merits of it's time? "Nostaligia" you call it, logic I call it.

snxx
snxx

@TomMcShea (part 2) I understand you're trying to analyze more context, history (and not only story) of the game and it's IP and etcetera, but, c'mon, you can't apply all movie and books reviews standards to game reviews, they're different media and their reviews need to be written differently, there are common points, but there are also very distinct aspects that you should notice.

snxx
snxx

@TomMcShea Well, if you're bringing GameSpot's review guidelines here, let's take a closer look at it. It says "3.0: You probably shouldn't get too close to a game in this range. Any of its positive qualities most likely serve only to make the rest of it seem even more disappointing" and also says "5.0: a 5-range score refers to a game that's 'merely average' in the negative sense. These games tend to have enough major weaknesses to considerably outweigh their strengths. There's probably a substantially better, similar game out there for you" and it also says "6.0: games that earn 6-range ratings have certain good qualities but significant problems as well. These games may well be worth playing, but you should approach them with caution". The problem here is that you say the game is pretty awful with no redeeming qualities, and we, your public, clearly disagree with that. We're not claiming this is an amazing game by today's standards, but we're saying it can still be pretty fun, despite obvious flaws. The worse part, however, is that you claim this game deserves a 3.0 bringing up point which makes no sense at all! Your review have 9 paragraphs and you spend the first 4 of them talking about things that have *nothing* to do with gameplay, and then, at the end, you spend the last one in the very same way, leaving the review less than 50% of *really* relevant content.

Elbowsmash
Elbowsmash

McShea translation: No matter how many people disagree, it's our policy and our policy is immune to mistakes. Eat **** 95% who have the same opinion that I'm wrong! I work here!

valdarez
valdarez

@Elbowsmash Think you like to argue just to argue. To suggest that you shouldn't have expectations for a game based on the price tag is foolish at best. That price is a 'footnote'? lol If you buy a $60 & have the same expectations when buying a $10 game, then you're probably disappointed quite often, or perhaps you buy the $60 expecting the same quality/quantity as the $10 and are happy all the time? heh

Elbowsmash
Elbowsmash

You are all wasting your breath trying to convince Tom that their rating system as it applies to classic ports is flawed. No matter how many people tidal-wave in, no matter how lopsided the opinion of the readers are, they are too arrogant to admit that there is a problem here.

KBFloYd
KBFloYd

whats all this "we" stuff mcshea... your the only horrible reviewer who pulls this kind of garbage.

KBFloYd
KBFloYd

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

TomMcShea
TomMcShea

@ERoBB, Any game released for modern systems is eligible for review, so I imagine we will review more re-releases in the future. As far as our review guidelines are concerned, you can read our philosophy [url=http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html]at this link[/url], but here's some important excerpts:

"The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform. "

"When we review a game, we consider it at the exact point in time at which the evaluation is taking place (generally, the week of a game's release) and compare it to what we believe to be the current standards of quality at that time."

"Each game we review exists in a competitive environment. That is, a game always has direct or indirect competition from other, possibly very similar games, which causes the game in question to be held to a higher standard."

People who expect me to ignore modern standards should familiarize themselves with our review policies. Also, nostalgia and popularity don't factor into a critical analysis.

TomMcShea
TomMcShea

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

ToTs_00
ToTs_00

Never played the game in the arcade so I don't have any nostalgia for the game at all and I still think it's a good game.

TimboII
TimboII

The only thing wrong with this game is that it's $10 instead of the $5....there was a time when Live Arcade would have only charged $5 for this....(TMNT is an example)...it bugs me that X-Men and this have been double the price they should be...especially this one. NO work went into this 'port'

Drkr_Zen
Drkr_Zen

@zenarcherx Seriously. And, we're not even speakin' from nostalgia... this is just commonsense Tom is lacking, lol. 

Leboyo56
Leboyo56

@snxx I believe Gamespot's commenting system was updated while this thread was still popular, and it isn't possible to view comments prior to the update. Which REALLY sucks since almost every game that was only mildly popular at best before 2007 are completely empty. Like, the site is a wasteland if you go back any further than this generation of consoles. 

snxx
snxx

@Leboyo56 Nope, that wasn't it Leboyo. That comment of mine was made even before the commenting system update. As I said "I see there's 21 pages of comments". Only on the old system you could see how many pages of comments there was. Now, about the site being a "wasteland" in old reviews, that may be because we weren't allowed to post comments on reviews, only on articles and news.

The Simpsons Arcade Game More Info

First Release on Feb 03, 2012
  • PlayStation 3
  • Xbox 360
6.9
Average User RatingOut of 208 User Ratings
Please Sign In to rate The Simpsons Arcade Game
Developed by:
Published by:
Konami
Genres:
Action, Beat-'Em-Up
Content is generally suitable for ages 10 and up. May contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
Everyone 10+
All Platforms
Fantasy Violence, Mild Language, Suggestive Themes, Use of Alcohol