BCM Review @ CGM

[jefflackey]

OK, I've got a cup of coffee this morning and I'm in a good mood - so let me play devil's advocate.

I've got a few programs here that I have to review in the next couple of weeks. Let's grab one off the top of the pile... Tiger Woods 2002, from EA Sports. This is from a new production team for EA Sports.

Let's throw word counts out as a factor - it's the responsibility of the reviewer to tell the reader what the reader needs to know to make a purchasing decision, regardless of word count.

So let's just assume that the game has a lot of new features for the Tiger Woods franchise (it does) and a couple of small problems. What am I supposed to write about the support? The only way to truly know how the game will be supported will be to watch for about six months and see how they respond to issues. Let's say in this case there are no serious bugs. How will I know how the EA tech support team is responding to the hundreds of tech support calls that they will get from people with all kinds of problems? Ask Derek - 90% of the tech support that people ask for has nothing to do with bugs in the program, they are usually problems from people's ignorance about how to run their computer or from odd system setups, etc. So - what is one supposed to write about with regard to support in the first weeks of release? It's bogus to write about how past games have been supported - you can't assume future games will be supported in the same way (good or bad).

BCM is a very unusual situation in that it is being reviewed significantly later than its release date. Normally programs are reviewed when they reach gold status. In fact, one issue that is debated is whether a program should be reviewed with patches applied or not. The answer that most mainstream pubs have made is the program must be reviewed "out of the box" versus patched - because the average person on the street gets the unpatched, boxed version. And what we often forget is that MOST people aren't very internet or computer savvy and may never know about a patch. This pisses off a lot of publishers, who call you up and gripe about a review: "Hey, you talked about the game crashing when you select the Gamma robots, but we released a patch to fix that." However, a lot of data shows that most people will buy the game from Best Buy, then when they get the crash they will shelve the game (actually, what I'll do, if a patch is already out is base the score on the boxed version but tack on an addendum that points people to the patch.) The other reason for basing reviews on the release version versus the patched version (and Derek can relate to this one, with his Take Two experiences) is to discourage the practice of releasing games with known bugs just to meet a release date and then assuming you can just fix it later.

Anyway - back to the support in a review question: for 99.9% of the reviews, the program is only a couple of weeks old, so you can't knowledgably comment on the support. And since the support that MOST readers end up needing is holding their hand because they don't understand computers very well, I'm not sure how you would test that support anyway.

But I LOVE a good debate - so please disagree with me!

Jeff Lackey

[Guest Grayfox]

as much as i love to debate jeff, i cant you pretty much nailed it. i get calls from people for my second job, that tell me how this aint working on their computer or or this is aways crashing, or they built their own system and now theyre having problems with such and such... when, like you stated, a great deal is due to ignorance. these people will go and fiddle with windows or some other proggy they have absoloutely no business messing with and screw it up... then call me and holler at me to come fix it. sometimes it makes me just shake my head to think how these people remember to breathe

but back on topic, youre right. not many games at all are reviewed after such a span of time as BCM. and im curious... youre a reviewer (this goes for any other reviewers out there) why does that sometimes happen?

just curious is all. maybe i missed the answer due to the angle of my forehead

[Duncan Idaho]

All have made good points, but I think Jeff said it best in the end, (and this isn't surprising, he actually writes these reviews for a living heheh).

For the record, I do approve of mags reviewing pre-patched versions. Mainly because Jeff is correct, the average user would likely just frown at you all unknowingly when asked 'Well, did you download the latest patch?'.

Still, in a perfect world, all developers would stand by their products as SC has. Then we'd worry less about their products, (and mention of 'support' in reviews), when we bought them!!

Idaho

[Supreme Cmdr]

Great points all around.

Just to expand on what Jeff said. He's right; games should be reviewed as an out of box experience, and I am 100% in support of that.

Yes, when you are developing games for the mass market, you have to consider John or Jane Doe walking home with a copy, installing it and crashing. More often than not, they will return it. HOWEVER, because of the direction our industry has taken, gamers (pour souls) have come to expect that all games - no matter how great - will ship with some problems. As such, the first thing they do is make a beeline for the tech support options. More often than not, they end up finally with a game that works on their system.

When you develop games that are targeted at the hardcore niche market - such as the BC series - you have certain freedoms because you know that your install base (at least those who know what the floppy drive does - and not to piss around downloading a video driver just because you can) is at the higher echelon. In that if there's a problem, they know where to go.

The downside to this, as everyone knows, is that publishers and developers have misused this very premise to shove games out the door. And they are STILL doing it. Some are intentional, some not.

Any game, no matter how long it was in Beta for, can and will ship with some problems. And it all depends on the kind of game. Heck, they are still releasing patches for Q3A, Unreal - damn, even Starcraft had a patch a few days ago!! The most important point in this aspect is : does the game work out of the box; and do the bugs ruin the game experience? This is a very critical factor.

Case in point, BCM a 100% indie product, was in Beta for almost a year - one year. In fact, it was on internal Beta for about two months before I even rolled out the external testing program. Take a look at the Beta VCF and just count the items marked FIXED. Prior to the game going Gold, the testers were finding things and us fixing them right up to the day I burned the SafeDisc master!!

Between the time it went to master, then to duplication (which got botched, as I mentioned in one of my soapbox articles), we'd found more issues!!! Take a look at the release VCF and scroll to the bottom of the page. Then count the FIXED items in that file. The game went gold on 9-22-01 and by the time it hit the shelves on 11-19-01, eleven bugs were discovered and fixed (for 1.0.01 released on 11-24-01) and a myriad of low priority (during development) revisions. But sure enough, the game worked right out of the box and I didn't need to have a patch waiting for download, on 11-19-01 (the day EB started selling it). Up to the recent 1.0.06 patch, thats almost three and a half months post-release. And had we even had an inkling that these were lurking in there, to this date, BCM would never have been released. At all.

It is a lot more difficult for an indie to pull off a game, let alone a game as complex as this. Just scanning both of the VCFs and reading the type of fixes and their quality, just reveals the underlying power of the game, its complexity and gives a great idea of just how worse it could have turned out in the end. And just think : this is the THIRD such game of this complexity and time, that I'm doing.

So, the end result is that in this current industry climate, some would like to think that gamers have to thank their stars that developers are around to support their product. wtf?!? I'm a gamer. I was a gamer before I entered this God forsaken industry and eccentric or not, I have enough sense to know that if I develop a game that someone buys, it had better damn well work. And if it doesn't, I am obligated to ensure that it does. Period.

Sure its nice to have gobs of dollars in the bank and move on to the next thing once you've done a game; but at the end of the day, it is that very notion that is having game companies fold all around us and with startling regularity.

So, if a company is notorious for not supporting their games, thats the kind of thing that a reviewer may or may not want to mention. All I'm saying is that any company that does not support the product they develop, deserve to be dragged over the coals for it. At the end of the day, it is up to the gamers to determine who they give their dollars to.

I support my games because I am obligated to those who buy and play them. However, that doesn't mean that I have to cater to the whims of every nutcase who thinks that I have to spend every waking minute leading them by the hand and showing them how to install a driver. And while I'm been labeled all sorts of things for the way I run the forum, at the end of the day, it just WORKS. If it didn't, what we'd have here would be no different from other lawless gaming forums. Above and beyond the price of the game, I still spend money and time in support areas - and before you know it, the game someone bought has ended up costing me more money. But I do it anyway because as a game developer, it is my duty to support my games; and that is one aspect that doesn't need to be mentioned in an already constrained review. Game developers supporting their games, should be the rule, not the exception.

[ 03-02-2002, 11:42: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Duncan Idaho]

Someone should print that diatribe in their game magazine, SC.

Makes a fine read, and it's true.

Idaho

[jefflackey]

To the question someone asked of why some games get reviewed later than others (I think that's what was asked): frankly it's a matter of how hyped and "hot" the release is. The more hyped a release is, the more the mags and web sites want to have a review up as soon as possible. This has been taken to a real extreme, unfortunately. A lot of web sites will have a review up so quickly that the reviewer only has a few days with the game. The result is often a review that misses a lot of items, such as bugs or gameplay issues that only show up after a LOT of play.

BCM is an indie game, with not nearly the marketing push that a game like The Sims or Freelancer will get. The average Joe or Jill who walks into Best Buy or Walmart to buy a game probably hasn't heard much about BCM. So the pressure to have a review out isn't as strong. The good news is that Denny and I had more time than we might normally have to play the game and review it (although you'd really like to have about a month for a game like BCM!)

Jeff Lackey

[Duncan Idaho]

If not a year, heheh.

Idaho

[Urza]

SC, I think you desprately want to write another soapbox article.

But yes, I agree with you 100%. Nobody (at least nobody sane) expects games to be 100% bug-free right out of the box, but they do expect it to be at least playable.

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Urza:

SC, I think you desprately want to write another soapbox article.

---

heh, funny you should mention that. I have WIP versions of a soapbox and dev diary I need to wrap up. *sigh*

[ 03-02-2002, 13:44: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Guest Grayfox]

thank you Jeff. that was me who asked that question. ever think of becoming a preacher SC??? lol you can definitely "lay it down"

and i agree with the comment about no one believes that a product out of the box will be 100% bug free. ususally after i purchase a game, right after i install it and before i play it ill check to see if theres any patches. thats like a "given" for me now. i mean common sense would dictate that you check out the home site to see what type of support they have ie: patches, troubleshooting, help desks etc... but then again not everyone uses the common sense manual

[ 03-02-2002, 16:08: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

[Kush]

Here goes an attempt at the devil's advocate:

One thing I think must be said, is that developers for computer games are really given the impossible task of making their game function on literally a miriad of system specs. This is why console gaming will always be more popular and more stable.

A developer can make a game that plays solid as a rock on video card X with sound card y and direct X version z. But change any of those factors, (or the DRIVERS for any of those factors!) and your stable game goes out the window. And don't expect Joe Gamer to have a clue as to whether they know which sound card driver they have, or Video card or what have you. I honestly don't know how you developers cope. It must be a nightmare at times. No review should be expected to say 'Make sure you play Deathrace 300 with the latest detonator patch, but not if you have a Soundblaster AWE, etc...' That would be silly and take forever.

But reviewers did take the time to tell people that Unreal plays waaaaay better using Glide than D3d. It was important to know. Those of us who had Voodoo cards at the time, could breath a sigh of relief and get to the gaming goodness.

And on top of that, even those developers who are considered at the pinnacle of games development, developers like ID and Valve, and Epic, even when they release a game, there are still bugs. Sometimes some pretty big bugs. I still have a HUGE problem with Half Life bugging out on me for NO REASON. Valve provided fixes in their auto updater, but never EVER listed the bugs they fixed. Not a single review mentioned Half Life having bugs. No reviewer would have dared to. The tide of popular support was at the time so in their favour that if a reviewer HAD experienced a bug, they would have ignored it. All software has bugs. All software. Everywhere. Code is written by human beings who are prone to error. It sucks, but that's life. No reviewer has to mention every single bug.

But as with Anarchy Online, it was VERY important to hear that the reviewer thought the release was premature, and buggy as Hell, but it's a MMORPG. It will be fixed, and sometime in the future, the game will be incredible. That's what I read in review after review. They mentioned the kind of support and how it was going. (For a while, every patch they released was big news)

And in the case of Wizardry 8, I think it's important to mention you shouldn't call the company for tech support cause they won't answer.

And personally, I hate how fast some reviews are written. Some sites put out a review so quickly, you know the reviewer didn't actually PLAY the game, they raced through it. How can you tell me what's enjoyable about a game when you've just raced through it. Now your review means nothing to me cause I don't trust it.

It would be great if a review could cover everything in a game, but they can't. It's the same with every other aspect of jounalism. You only have so many words. Imagine what foriegn affairs jounalists feel like when someone says, '1000 words on the middle east conflict, and I need it in two hours, now GO!'

[jefflackey]

I'll disagree with you on one point: most good professional writers aren't any more afraid to mention a bug in a highly hyped game than in a crappy game. The problem you run into is precisely what you mentioned before: separating a true bug from a problem with your specific system setup. A bug worth mentioning, in my mind, is if a program has a problem that is reproducible on almost all systems. Or if a program crashes on all 3dfx equipped systems, but works on nVidia systems. However, if I'm running BlackIce Defender as the firewall and I'm running Norton Crashguard in the background and the beta drivers for my GeForce (plus I have it overclocked) and a program crashes, and I can disable BlackIce and the program works on that system, I don't consider that to be a bug, certainly not something to talk about in a review.

I have 3 systems that I currently run at home. Two are kinda similar, one is intentionally pretty different. When I see a "bug" in a program, I run it on the other systems to see if it is truly a bug, or if it is something odd about my system.

Here's a good example of how you can make a big mistake in a globally read magazine if you're not careful. I was reviewing a program on my main reviewing machine back a few years ago. It had a problem that was causing the mouse cursor to move incredibly slowly across the screen, so much so that the game was practically unplayable. I shut down everything in the background via ctrl-alt-del, still it was having this problem. Oddly, no one else seemed to be reporting the problem, but I had never seen a problem like this with ANY program on this machine, so it HAD to be a bug in the program. (How many times to tech support people hear this?) I had written the review up for CGW and had given this highly anticipated game a very low mark due to this problem. Just before I sent the review in to my editor, I had this "brain-fart" in the middle of the night, so I slipped out of bed, started my computer up, and ran a process checking utility (one of those utilities that shows everything going on in your system.) I was surprised to find out that my CPU activity was running aroung 90%, constantly, even when nothing was running in the background. To make a long story short, I found out that there was a utility running in the background, even though it didn't show up in the ctrl-alt-del screen nor in the startup folder - it had been installed on the stealth by a program from way back, and didn't uninstall when I uninstalled the program (it was running from a registry call.) When I managed to go into the registry and get rid of this leech, the program I was reviewing ran perfectly.

My personal experience is that the better writers out there, the real pros, will mention bugs without worrying about who produced the program. Hell, I hang out with these guys, and we LOVE to find flaws in highly hyped programs (remember, we are high intensity gamers too.) I think when you see bugs being not mentioned, it's either because the reviewer didn't experience the bug, or because the reviewer didn't play the game enough to see the bug, or because the reviewer is a crappy reviewer.

FWIW, I wrote an article that is on the website www.quartertothree.com called "Why Game Writing Sucks" It talks about a lot of this stuff.

Jeff Lackey

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kush:

Valve provided fixes in their auto updater, but never EVER listed the bugs they fixed.

---

Most developers will not list bugs because it reveals a bit too much about what is lurking in the program. I can assure you that for every bug you see listed in a release info sheet, there are probably two not listed.

In my case, since I don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks, I list bugs (no matter how major), revisions etc no matter how critical or unimportant. In fact, about 90% of the bug fixes in BCM are internally discovered. This means that there is a very good chance that the end user will ever discover those bugs during their play time.

quote:

---

And in the case of Wizardry 8, I think it's important to mention you shouldn't call the company for tech support cause they won't answer.

---

Thats because SirTech is out of business; and has been for almost two years now. They developers, all of whom have now moved on, do offer tech support via forum. Robert (one of the owners) and I go way back and I was supposed to handle W8 tech support here, but due to my own committments and the logistics of it all, that didn't happen. I also think the developers agreed to handle post-release support on their own time and dime. So thats how come they still do. W8 was also an EB exclusive for a certain period, before it was available elsewhere.

[ 03-03-2002, 14:21: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Kush]

Personally I prefer PC gaming. Always have, always will. It's a lot of things, alot of reasons. Most of my buddies have the PS2/x-Box/Nintendo combo at home and I understand why.

I have no problem going through my machine and working out the kinks to enjoy my favourite game. My friends would never be bothered. A close friend of mine has just bought an X-Box and he says he's never going back to PC gaming. Can't afford the massive upgrades every six months. Can't be bothered with hunting down drivers. It actually would be nice for Nvidia and ATI and all the sound card makers and all other computer device makers to just agree on standards and create a simpler device to program for. But it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. At least not in my life time. And so as a reader of game reviews, I don't mind a reviewer mentioning to me in their review, 'Listen, I had to ctrl-Alt-Del a couple of times just to clear out the programs running in background. And you may have to tinker with your registry, but the game is worth it.' Personally I prefer the heads up. But I'm sure some publishing houses would be furious.

Personally, I think a games tech support is seved by listing all known issues clearly at the outset. Some games have a half hearted attempt in the setup text file. But it would be great if most developers took a page from Derek's book and publish the version control file. Again, it ain't gonna happen in my life time, but it would be great.

And SC, really too bad about Sirtech. I remember the Wizardry series from back in grade 7. Man those were the days. Hope your friend has found a place in the industry, and is putting out more games!

[ 03-04-2002, 09:46: Message edited by: Kush ]

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kush:

And SC, really too bad about Sirtech. I remember the Wizardry series from back in grade 7. Man those were the days. Hope your friend has found a place in the industry, and is putting out more games!

---

Nope, he's out of the biz for good. Can't say I blame him either.

[ 03-04-2002, 10:28: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Kush]

And Jeff, I remember reading your article a while ago. Great writing! And very true. But one thing about writing reviews that happens in the Film and Theatre world, and it's something that affects even the most respectable reviewers, and I imagine it happens in the world of game reviewing is... public perception bias.

Throughout film and theatre history there have been times when an actor, or a film maker, or playwright, or style was out of fashion. The film/play they created was brilliant, but the public perception dictates the way the reviewer comments on the show.

One of the earliest examples is Ibsen's Doll's House. The public wasn't ready for a female character who would leave their husband. The reviews castigated it as being one of the worst plays ever written and subsequently the show was banned for many years. It is now a classic.

So is 'It's a Wonderful Life' but you would never have known that from the reviews at the time. They lambasted the film. Now it's a Christmas tradition.

Citizen Kane is a special case because the reviews were dictated by the most powerful man in publishing William Randolf Hearst (spelling is off I think) I have no idea what it was like for a reviewer at the time to see that film and be forced to trash it, when deep in your heart, you know it's the greatest film achievement of the 20th century.

Good proffesional reviewers are just trying to do their best, under the cicumstances, but they are also trying to ferret out public opinion, and play to it. When I bought Diablo I thought I was going to love it. I love RPG's. I love action. Everyone loves the game. Everyone plays it. I HATED IT. After a while I felt like I was taping a NAIL INTO MY SKULL with every click. It was too simple for me. Too boring. If I were reviewing it, I would have had to put my own personal feelings aside, and judge it for what I percieved most people would get out of it. I would have to think about what my audience wants to play and enjoy. Put their desires above mine. And sometimes that can get in the way if the gameplay is ahead of its time, or the developer is unpopular.

You touched on this in your article. I just wanted to add my 0.02.

[ 03-04-2002, 12:49: Message edited by: Kush ]

[jefflackey]

You know, you bring up an interesting point. There are a couple of approaches to writing a review. One is to try to figure out if the public (at least the audience who reads your magazine) will like the game. The other is to say the heck with what I think other people will like - I'm going to write my opinion.

Interestingly enough, the editors for the magazines for which I write are pretty adamant that you write your opinion, regardless of what the prevailing public opinion may be. Now - they try to keep a good stable of experts in different genres, so that you're writing in an genre in which you have proven experience and expertise. Thus, I write a lot in the sim, sports, strategy, and wargaming genres. But I rarely review anything in the RTS genre (I like them, but I don't have a lot of expertise in them.)

So, if I play a game and hate it, even if its probably going to be a hit, my editors want me to write my opinion. Of course, I need to tell WHY I hate it, so that if my reasons for hating it wouldn't bother someone else, they may decide to get it anyway. Same if I love a game that the rest of the world may hate.

Now, it's never happened to me, but I have known of a couple of cases where an editor read a review of a game and it was so off-base that they asked the writer about it, and eventually took the review away and gave it to someone else. But I've only seen that happen (where I write, which is primarily CGW, CGM/CGO, and Gamespy) when the editor thought the writer was just factually wrong. And they would have to be REAL wacko - like someone playing Civ2 and saying that it had no replayability, was poorly designed, and the gameplay was destroyed because it lacked fancy graphics.

And contrary to popular belief - I've never, ever, EVER seen an editor try to sway or change a review (for the places I write) because of a publisher's displeasure. In fact, we were talking about this at a press event (Microsoft Game Show this past week) and editors were proudly comparing who had pissed off the biggest publishers. I know editors who've seen ads pulled by big companies, and they still refused to back down from a review. I was looking at this aspect of things REAL closely when I first started writing in this biz - it isn't so clean cut in some other areas.

Jeff

[Duncan Idaho]

Heheh,

I remember a certain real BIG (BIG!!) software company pulling ads from CGW after a certain title was poorly reviewed not too long back.

Nice to see CGW stood their ground.

Idaho

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Lackey:

And they would have to be REAL wacko - like someone playing Civ2 and saying that it had no replayability, was poorly designed, and the gameplay was destroyed because it lacked fancy graphics.

---

Imagine my surprise when I saw the PC Zone UK review for the first time.

In this case, its not only that he spent less time talking about the game, but he found time to really blow it by going so far as to print a screen shot of a Windows crash screen - a screen that can be seen in ANY number of games in recent memory.

Of course, my opinion is that its payback for that whole bruhaha over me giving PC Gamer UK (their fierce competitor) the BCM demo exclusive. Of course, the editor sent me email saying that this was not the case and also added a sort of reconcilatory blurb to the next issue (I think I have it around here somewhere).

Sometimes, it just gets weird. And yet editors wonder why their readership is down and readers rarely take reviews seriously anymore.

[jefflackey]

Well, like I said, I can only speak for the mags and sites I write for. There are some really bad sites that freelancers joke about privately.

I'd probably be terrible at being on the other side of the fence. The first time I read a review by someone who obviously didn't play the game and who was an obvious ignorant so-and-so, I'm sure I'd go ballistic. I've had publishers' PR folks (rarely) come after me on a review I've written, but when I ask them, point by point from the review, what was inaccurate, they usually start babbling.

Not to say I haven't ever gotten a review wrong; in all the years I've done this, I've written a few stinkers! But I don't think I've ever gotten anything factually wrong. Just had a really bad opinion a few times.

Jeff Lackey

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

For ME (and I don't give a toss about anyone else's opinion), I would much rather see review space spent discussing the game in question and what the gamer NEEDS TO KNOW rather than on material that is a given.

---

With review space so valuable, do you ever think the day will come when the first paragraph or two does NOT mention your history with TAKE2?

[Ryan Eversole]

quote:

---

With review space so valuable, do you ever think the day will come when the first paragraph or two does NOT mention your history with TAKE2?

---

Very good point Steve! The people that have been around already know about it and to the new people, it is of little importance. I would much rather read about the support and dev status than have this type of thing rehashed.

[Duncan Idaho]

Heheh,

Isn't that a little like getting Einstien to speak at your school without ever once mentioning his past work?

I think the history should be there, because that history, if told correctly, lets one know just how far SC will go to be sure his title becomes what he envisioned it would.

I mean, he DID go to incredible lengths when almost any other developer out there would have cut their losses, and quietly joined some other company. Not SC.

Keep the history, even if it's sometimes an unpleasant reminder of things past. It's also a reminder of true dedication.

Idaho

[ 03-06-2002, 02:32: Message edited by: Duncan Idaho ]

[Kush]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Lackey:

Well, like I said, I can only speak for the mags and sites I write for. There are some really bad sites that freelancers joke about privately.

---

Like with anything, there are good reliable companies, and there are some companies that are not so reliable. CGW has always been one you can trust. Both CGW and PC Gamer are good mags whose reviews I may not always agree with, but the writing talent it always top notch.

quote:

---

I know editors who've seen ads pulled by big companies, and they still refused to back down from a review. I was looking at this aspect of things REAL closely when I first started writing in this biz - it isn't so clean cut in some other areas.

---

We need more guys like that working in other areas of journalism, that's for sure!

Have you ever had a company kinda hint to you that they would make it worth your while if you give them an extra star? "You know Jeff, Nicole Kidman is in town, and she's single. We could set up a nice evening for you two. All you gotta do is give Moulin Rouge: the GAME a five star rating. Whadayasay?"

[ 03-06-2002, 08:14: Message edited by: Kush ]

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duncan Idaho:

Heheh,

Isn't that a little like getting Einstien to speak at your school without ever once mentioning his past work?

I think the history should be there, because that history, if told correctly, lets one know just how far SC will go to be sure his title becomes what he envisioned it would.

I mean, he DID go to incredible lengths when almost any other developer out there would have cut their losses, and quietly joined some other company. Not SC.

Keep the history, even if it's sometimes an unpleasant reminder of things past. It's also a reminder of true dedication.

Idaho

---

I agree. And FWIW, I like the way both Denny and Jeff (and some others of recent memory) mentioned this in a subtle fashion without overbearing the reader with the intricate details and wasting valuable space. After all, like it or not, Derek Smart and the Battlecruiser franchise are probably part of the whole game industry pop culture now. Yikes! Such pressure.