Our Users Say
||How well the game mechanics work (player controls, game action, interface, etc.)
||The quality of the art, or the quality/speed of the drawing routines
||How much you personally like the game, regardless of other attributes
|Sound / Music
||The quality of the sound effects and/or music composition
|Story / Presentation
||The main creative ideas in the game and how well they're executed
|Overall User Score (23 votes)
MobyRanks are listed below. You can read here
for more information about MobyRank.
Unless you are a Waldo groupie or a masochist, forget about this game. The horrible graphics completely undermine the point of looking for Waldo.
All told, Where’s Waldo? might give you an hour of gameplay and that’s if you’re committed to the cause. Commit to nothing. Save what’s left of your eyes.
The huge issue here is
that the graphics are absolutely atrocious, with each “picture”
filled with tiny stick-figure people with no detail, making it very
difficult to decipher who Waldo is from the rest of the “people” in
the picture. This reduces the game to useless squinting, guessing,
and a lack of fun. If this doesn’t sound insane enough, the timer
is cumulative between levels and does not reset. A couple of mini-games are here to “play” as well, but they’re not worth the trouble
to try and reach. Stick to the books.
I really wanted to give this game a zero for essentially being unplayable. But, I was able to make enough educated guesses to select Waldo, but I never felt confident it was him. I would think, “Well, there’s something with stripes; maybe it is him.” Technically, the game is beatable, just like how, technically, Arby’s is food. I tried to think of something positive about this game, but it really sucks the fun out of the books and gives you something you should feel ashamed you’ve played.
Die Leute von THQ schafften es tatsächlich, ihren ersten Walter-Titel in Sachen Qualität noch zu unterbieten. Selten hat man so ein perfektes Zusammenspiel von misslungener, spielspaßhemmender Grafik, erbärmlichem Sound und miserabler Steuerung erlebt. Eine Ohrfeige für alle Freunde guter Videospiele. Gäbe es so was wie eine NES-Videospielhölle, dann wäre dieser Titel ein Favorit für den Thron.
Overall, this game sucks. Replay holds up alright, only considering that the levels are randomly generated, providing for a new game every time you play. The problem is the game sucks. I don't care how many different levels you make, if the game sucks then the game sucks. Bottom line. Let me put it this way. If you are going to get an NES game, get something you can't do better in a book.
This game is a biblical plague that poisons everything it touches with non-existent gameplay and terrible graphics. Don't cut it any slack because it's supposed to be an "educational" game; the only thing Where's Waldo will teach anyone is how to stop loving.
Someone should have explained to the designers of this game that the NES is not exactly the wünderkind of Captain Detail. The screens you are presented with have teeny tiny little drawings that barely resemble humans or objects. You're never gonna see Waldo's face, you're never gonna see any details. At the most, you will spot Waldo as a couple of 1 millimeter red stripes under a tiny circle for a head, maybe two lines of blue representing his pants if you're lucky. The whole point of the books was to hide Waldo cleverly so you had to really search to find him, NOT to have to really search in order to make out whether what you're looking at is supposed to be human. And to throw you off, because otherwise the process would just be too easy, there are other similarly undetailed people wearing red striped shirts. But they're NOT Waldo! And wait till you get to the level that takes place in a CAVE where you can't see anything! Ha ha, good luck!
It's hard to believe something this pointless came out of Bethesda Softworks, the same people that brought you Fallout and The Elder Scrolls. Where's Waldo? Hopefully in a landfill, because that's where this 8-bit piece of garbage belongs.
This is the first time a NES FANZ review received a "0/5" rating... its sad. If you look down to the "Related Content" links, you'll see this crappy game on TWO bad NES game lists. Why isn't it on my 10 Worst Games of the NES? Quite simply it didn't even deserve a spot there. Heck, it doesn't even deserve to be inside a NES let alone have a review for it but here it is. So, overall the graphics sucked, music was horrible, the gameplay was haneous, it was made by T*HQ, fun as a TNA iMPACT! match, and it was based on a book that you only read when your bored anyway.