Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

UC Review - Computer Gaming World

Recommended Posts

The CGW review appears in the October issue on p82 and with a 2.5/5 star rating.

You're NOT going to believe who reviewed it. None other than, drama queen, Eric Wolpaw of OMM fame. I had no idea that he had even started writing for CGW until I read this today.

I sent email to Robert Coffey the CGW reviews editor expressing my surprise and indignation at the choice of reviewer. To the extent that I told him that, giving Erik a Derek Smart game to review, was like George Bush asking Michael Moore to give him a reference for his next job. Foolish. Just foolish.

The review (which I will scan sometime tomorrow), says NOTHING about the game. I kid you not. He spends several paragraphs talking about the Derek Smart history and the rest of the review, well, I can't even describe it. You just have to read it for yourself when you come across it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has he reviewed any of your previous games? Does he have *any* history of reviewing, or being a fan, of space-sims?

I'm guessing he falls under the 'play-for-only-30-seconds-then-blame-his-own-stupidity-on-the-developer' syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to reveal Rober Coffey's (the reviews editor) email to me - for privacy reasons - but below is my first email and the second which was my reply to his response. He basically said that they stood by the review, that he didn't want to get into a "protracted argument" about it etc . What I found ludicrous was this excerpt; and I only mention it here to provide clarify to the reference to it in my reply below.

"To have reviewed this game without acknowledging its history/origins we would have

been as remiss as a movie reviewer who failed to address the other issues inherent

in Farenheit 9/11 or Passion of the Christ (though obviously your work isn't that

controversial or emotionally freighted so let's not go there--it's just a simile)."

You can temporaritly find the scanned review over here

quote:


Hey Rob,

just got to read the October issue of the mag in which Eric Wolpaw (!) reviewed the game.

He spends the first part writing about non-game issues, thereby wasting valuable space

in the review. He didn't even review *any* aspect of the game itself. And this, to me,

read like an opinion ed. So much for pairing such a complex and intricate game with a

credible reviewer. You get what you pay for I guess.

Oh well; it could've been worse I suppose.

cheers

DS


quote:


Robert,

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the email I sent was designed to be a "protracted

argument". I thought my email was simple, direct, clear and to the point. Maybe not. So

please, don't turn my email into something its not because I'm sure this is not the

first time you are getting emails from a dev, publisher or reader in relation to a review.

Further, it is just plain silly for you to compare the review of a media artform (e.g. Fahrenheit 9/11)

to gaming as it relates to content, context and premise. My POINT (which you clearly missed) was

that the gamer has no goddamn interest in whether the developer sleeps in the nude, rides the bus

or eats chocolates for breakfast. Its not like the mag has all that space for such nonsense;

or does it?

There is a damn good reason why readers tend to trust a certain pedigree of reviewers - and

mags - over others. And there is also a damn good reason why one magazine has a higher readership

and credibility than another. By that very token, my games cater to a niche audience and

thats why they continue to sell and I continue to develop them. Soooooo, the history has

NOTHING to do with the quality, presentation or playability of my works.

Erik Wolpaw is a drama queen
(not unlike me, some would say - but I'm king, so there) and we have

some sort of history back when OMM was actually funny and worth reading; hence the exclamation point

in my previous email. The several references to "Dr. Derek Smart" was just one his several jabs based

on
a tired old tale
that nobody gives a toss about; except
maybe the stalker
.

And I'm not the first dev to sue a publisher either. It just so happens that other

indie devs who
are getting screwed
seemingly on cue, don't have the resources to do it. And when

they do, its not news. WHAT relevance does that have to the
review of a game
?!?!?! I get it, just

because its Derek Smart, so it bears relevance? Thats just nonsense. Pure. Utter. Nonsense. And

its the kind of crap that Eric lives for.

The entire two paragraphs - of rubbish - at the beginning of the review, could

have very well been allocated to discussing the [de]merits of the game. I mean, its not like

it got a one star rating or such. Frankly, I don't give a toss about star ratings and they

are pointless and purely subjective. As long as the review is well written and conveys a

review to the reader, nothing else is relevant - especially the score.

I didn't say anything about his writing abilities or lackof either.

Giving him my game to review, is not only a conflict (?) of interest, but it would be like - to

use your rather inappropriate example - having Michael Moore give George Bush a reference for his

next job. My point being, given Eric and me the quintessential target, I can't blame the poor bastard

for being unable to excercise restraint and just write the damn review about the game and not about

Derek Smart.

The review was rubbish. The score, as I've said, is irrelevant. I'll take a well written and

honest review any day, over a shoddily written review. There wasn't a single GODDAMN

paragraph that said ANYTHING constructive about THE GAME. Even the screen shot about a bitmap

city, is nonsense. He is on the outskirts of the mzone and at an altitude at which the objects

are not yet visible. And thats not a city. Its a base. Cities have different site textures.

...but I digress.

Sure, I expect you to [stand] by your review and my email was not an intent to sway you

from that. My email - the first ever to CGW about reviews of my games - was purely to

express my dismay at having Eric - of all people - write a review of a Derek Smart game.

For example, when Denny Atkin wrote an excellent review of the game for CGM and gave it

a 3/5 star rating, I simply sent him emails discussing what to do better next time. Same

goes with Andy Mahood who reviewed it for PC Gamer with a 75/100 score. You see, they "get it".

Thats why I specifically asked you not to assign the game review to someone who wasn't competent

enough to review the game, given its sim-like complexity. I am quite certain that had Jeff Lackey

reviewed it as originally intended, even if the score were the same, it would have been a well written

and objective review. Thats all I'm saying. But no, Erik Wolpaw it had to be. I'm sure that

somehow, I was supposed to burst out laughing when I saw that; but for some reason, I was

purely astonished and speechless.

I don't want to get involved in any controversy about this; and thats why I cc'ed Jeff (whom

I have the highest regard for) on my email because I know how third-party information

tends to blur; especially where Derek Smart is concerned. So please take my email for what

it was; nothing more and nothing less.

cheers

DS


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downloaded and read the review...

Before I started, I took a deep breath and pretended like I had never heard of Universal Combat, or Derek Smart, before.

I don't get it, and I agree with you. The guy didn't review the game! It sounded like nothing more than one of the many flame-ridden forum posts that I've seen trolls post about this or that game (including UC). It was all groundless opinion and no substance. He didn't give any specific examples of any features in the game that caused him to have a negative opinion.

To be fair, he did complain about how big the manual was and gave numbers of pages... so that's valid review material (opinion and fact). I (the review reader) can look at that and say, "But *I* like games with healthy manuals, especially complex simulations."

He doesn't say anything positive about the game at all, except that you'd like the game if you are one of the fetishistic nerds that's played one of the previous games in the series. Heck, I'm hardly a die-hard of the game, and am only a few months new to it, but I do like what I've played so far and took offense.

Not to sound (too) crude, but all he basically said is that it was too big and hard. Maybe he's the one with the fetish problem... and maybe you should take it as a compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the guy, really DOESNT get it. ALL the things he knocks, about the game, are the things, which make this game BLOW all the other games(arcade styled shitware) out of the water.

His "so called" observation are so inaccurate, there is no way, he could have actually PLAYED UC; but only loaded it up and spent 20 minutes, trying to figure out how to land.

The actual REVIEW, appeared to be in the form of a PERSONAL attack to Derek Smart, rather than the actual game itself.

I say, we tar and feather him, when he gets off work!!.......(just kidding)

Seriously though....Intelligence, is one thing, ARCADE syled games, DO NOT require. And this reviewer, is definately caught inside the ARCADE mind set.

I have been playing CONTINUOUS now, for 39 days...and ENJOY every minute I am at the bridge....I'd bet, this guy has NEVER imagined, ANY game could get that kind of attention...and NOT get old!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the part when he said, "[uC's] over-the-top fixation on the most trivial details of starship control".

mm-kay... I am curious how many starships he has controlled before. And, if he had actually played the game, he would have found out that none of the details are trivial, but are functional pieces of a larger whole. It's not like you're micromanaging latrine duty. Quite the opposite, except keeping your eye on fuel quantities (and food), the ship/crew runs itself.

And I do agree that the user interface is complex. Not absurdly complex, but this is a space simulator and as such is more complicated than a space shooter (like Freelancer, for example).

He would probably trash MS Flight Simulator, too. A newbie can't just hop into that game, either, without a substantial learning curve, especially if you want to take advantage of all the realistic navigation and radio features.

He simply didn't review UC for what it was (a sci-fi tactical space simulator), and instead took a forum-troll attitude towards the game and "reviewed" it from an arcade shooter/eye-candy point of view.

I love arcade/flashy shooters. Right now UT2004 is tops on my list, but I wouldn't even think about tainting a review (if I were to do one) of Universal Combat with my opinion of UT2004. This reviewer had his mind (and agenda) on things other than the game he was reviewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrm...someone obviously certainly doesn't get it, what a wonderful person, remind me when I'm declared Lord of Everything, first thing I do, a plague of volcanoes in that guys underwear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess I'm going to get a serious lashing for this, but I have to say that the CGW review hits on a central game play issue. The fact is that the game is not easy and as a result most people will not like it or will miss the point. I have felt, and continue to believe, that UC would have sold way more copies had it more of the BOOM factor, instead of micromanagement. I have been watching these forums for months and nobody is saying this out loud. Instead we have a bunch of "yes men" telling Derek how great the game is and that people are missing the point. Is the game FUN? People buy space sims to blow things up and then trade and then blow things up again. The Hollywood factor is sorely missing from this installment. I used to love it when I could be transported from fighter to fighter in BC3K. The FUN was there and the BOOM factor was there.

My guess is that Derek wants his game to sell and that he wants to make back the money that he has poured into it. This is not going to happen if you keep designing a game for a small niche market. However, you won't make the masses happy and as a result you won't make money. It's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DS has stated quite clearly in innumerable posts (here and elsewhere) that money isn't his motivation. He'll keep making more games as long as people are willing to pay for it (which they are) and in enough quantity to warrant making another installment (which it does).

I agree with you that there appear to be a lot of "yes men" on this board. However, understand that this IS his board and the people who remain here are positive or at least minimally neutral toward him. Would you let thugs trash your house? No.

I also agree with you that the game has a lack of "Hollywood BOOM factor", but if that's what you want, you're looking at the wrong game. Play the game for what it is, not for what it isn't. And if you don't like its style or presentation, no one is twisting your arm to play it. There are other games out there to play that have a BOOM factor if that's what you're looking for.

But I, too, feel what I think you are saying. You want one of your favorite games to be even better... cooler... prettier... and you want other people to understand what a cool game BC/UC ultimately is (and that a designer paint job might do the trick).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by TSCavalier:

I think DS has stated quite clearly in innumerable posts (here and elsewhere) that money isn't his motivation. He'll keep making more games as long as people are willing to pay for it (which they are) and in enough quantity to warrant making another installment (which it does).

I would like to believe that money is not an issue here, but I think it is. Derek has created a labor of love so to speak, but he needs money to keep this machine moving. Money may not be his motivation, but it is certainly is a necessity. Also, there is nothing wrong with making money and letting it be a part of your motivation.

quote:

I agree with you that there appear to be a lot of "yes men" on this board. However, understand that this IS
his
board and the people who remain here are positive or at least minimally neutral toward him. Would you let thugs trash your house? No.

I would want people to be honest and straight forward when providing me with feedback about my product. It's one of the few ways that it would get better. I've seen people on this board attack others and create an air that is negative to those who want to ask simple questions. When people align in this way on the board they place objectivity on the shelf so that they can be part of the group. That process does not help Derek to make a better game and, as a result, Derek may not get the feedback that helps him to make better design decisions.

quote:

I also agree with you that the game has a lack of "Hollywood BOOM factor", but if that's what you want, you're looking at the wrong game. Play the game for what it is, not for what it isn't. And if you don't like its style or presentation, no one is twisting your arm to play it. There are other games out there to play that have a BOOM factor if that's what you're looking for.

This is what I'm talking about. If the post does not fit into the BC/UC mold then "go play something else." I've seen that thought written many times since the release of UC and previous BC games. I was a beta tester for the original BC3K. I have been following the series for some time and want to see it get better. Of, course nobody is forcing me to play it, but I could see how the game could be better. In fact, I could see it being the best game ever made. The concept is great and vision is coming to life. It is my opinion that the BOOM factor would greatly engance UC and not take away from the parts of it that make it good now. The CGW review made a valid point about the FUN factor. Perhapes that point should be considered.

quote:

But I, too, feel what I think you are saying. You want one of your favorite games to be even better... cooler... prettier... and you want other people to understand what a cool game BC/UC ultimately is (and that a designer paint job might do the trick).

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Nicholas Dogris, Ph.D.:

Well I guess I'm going to get a serious lashing for this, but I have to say that the CGW review hits on a central game play issue. The fact is that the game is not easy and as a result most people will not like it or will miss the point. I have felt, and continue to believe, that UC would have sold way more copies had it more of the BOOM factor, instead of micromanagement. I have been watching these forums for months and nobody is saying this out loud. Instead we have a bunch of "yes men" telling Derek how great the game is and that people are missing the point. Is the game FUN? People buy space sims to blow things up and then trade and then blow things up again. The Hollywood factor is sorely missing from this installment. I used to love it when I could be transported from fighter to fighter in BC3K. The FUN was there and the BOOM factor was there.

My guess is that Derek wants his game to sell and that he wants to make back the money that he has poured into it. This is not going to happen if you keep designing a game for a small niche market. However, you won't make the masses happy and as a result you won't make money. It's that simple.


You - like most - are MISSING the goddamn point. I PAY FOR and DEVELOP the games that I want to play. The games I envision - and which thousands are buying and playing, have micromanagement in it because that IS an integral part of the design and premise. Thats NEVER going to change.

If I wanted to develop a run of the mill game that everyone (which is stupid in itself to even think that), I'd have done it MANY years ago.

MANY space sims that have come and gone and FAILED, continue to prove this point. Making a game easy, taking out micromanagement and developing a game that SOMEONE ELSE wants to play, is NOT the key to selling games. I develop games for a NICHE audience and I have absolutely NO intentions of deviating from that. I make money from it; I make a tidy profit, so I keep doing it. Every now and then, if I see places where things could be make simpler and easier without detracting from the core of the game design, I do it. And the VCF of my games, prove just that.

Just because my games don't sell millions of units doesn't mean SQUAT. A company like Activision can put out a mass market space sim and see if FLOP. Interplay, Particle Systems etc all all made space sims that FLOPPED - and NONE of those games had any micromanagement. X2, with all its North American ads, high reviews (for graphics mostly), has been out since LAST YEAR and has barely sold as many units as UC has in six months. Sure, the price might have something to do with it, but even at the current 2 to 1 ratio, that just kills that pricing argument right there. Even BCM/BCM Gold, sold more units than ALL of those space sims - including both X titles.

...and your point was what?

NOTHING pisses me off more than some clueless person - on the OUTSIDE - telling me what kind of game I should be developing; when in fact there are thousands and thousands of people BUYING those games, playing and liking them for WHAT they are. Thats just presumptious and egotistical. I don't CARE about one thousand people who like 25% aspects of my game. I care about one hundred people who like 90% of my game.

My games do NOT pretend to be something else. Even with Dreamcatcher's failed attempt at shoehorning BCG into the action genre - complete with the requisite price drop - all they ended up doing was bringing out more gamers from the woodwork, who would otherwise NOT have had the opportunity to TRY SOMETHING NEW. Now they've seen whats possible, it is HIGHLY unlikely that they will ever settle for less in any game of its type and genre. So, what does that do? It means I get to sell those people the next game, because, guess what, THEY are the ones who keep me in business and one of the reasons I keep doing this.

The day I, for example, automate crew management in ANY of the BC games, is the day I declare to the BC fans that I've started going down the road of ruining the franchise. And I can do it in FIVE - yes, I said FIVE - lines of code. Or even by simply starting off all the crew with 100 AI. No more crew management. Three instructions later and you NEVER have to babysit ANY repairs or unit replacements, as long as you have a CE on board. Yeah, its in there - and thats how the AI is able to automate various aspects WITHOUT totally taking control. I CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT. Its MY choice. Its THE GAMES I want to develop.

This is the problem and thats why flight sims are all but dead. You can't just up and change something because some tit decides thats whats best. How is HE to know that? There thousands and thousands of games FAILING at retail and with massive budgets no less; someone must have thought they would have succeeded.

And what ANY of this has to do with a board that is primarily for PEOPLE WHO LIKE THE GAMES is beyond me. I've said it before, when I sell someone a game, I don't sell them a key to my house or the right to come here. Don't f*cking come here if you don't like the atmosphere. THIS board is NOT a part of the game, nor is it an extension.

I don't develop games so that I would make friends (though I have made a few along the way) or organize cookouts. I develop games because it is FUN and getting my money back from publishers is usually half the fun. If someone shares my idea of fun, so be it. If they don't, it makes no goddamn difference to me. It is not my goal to inject my ideas or values into someone else and thats why people have different likes and dislikes. You - as a practicing (?) psychologist - should know that I am someone with a hardline resolve.

quote:


Originally posted by TSCavalier:

I agree with you that there appear to be a lot of "yes men" on this board. However, understand that this IS
his
board and the people who remain here are positive or at least minimally neutral toward him. Would you let thugs trash your house? No.


Exactly.

And I didn't ask ANYONE to come here. Hell, if I took the board off-line, just THINK what would happen. In fact, I should probably try that one day. Take the entire board offline for a whole month - just to prove a point.

I didn't ask anyone to be a "yes" man; all I ask is that people don't flood my board with rubbish and that all members be treated with respect. If someone doesn't like my game or the board atmosphere, NOT coming here is the very best way to let me know that. I don't want to hear about what the game should be, isn't or whatnot. What I listen to is how to improve the game based on what it is and does; not a radical change to what I envision. Being a LEADER is primarily about having the power and authority to make decisions (good, bad or ugly) and the guts to deal with the consequences thereafter. When I make decisions, I stick with them - and obviously a thousand bad reviews of my games because some reviewer doesn't get it, don't mean squat in the general scheme of things.

[ 08-26-2004, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nicholas Dogris, Ph.D.:

I've seen people on this board attack others and create an air that is negative to those who want to ask simple questions. When people align in this way on the board they place objectivity on the shelf so that they can be part of the group.

This is one point I agree ,though from little time i've spent on this board i can say this is NOT the fault of the group but some noobs(or semi-noobs) misunderstanding of this group and its purposes and misbehaving as a result of this FALSE image.(Im not talking about "RTFM" answers as I dont think it's creating any negative "air" ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only complaint I've ever had about the BC/UC games is that the sound effects lack power. Other than that, the only "issues" with the game are more about disliking the play-style (hey, this game isn't for everyone) than techincal issues with the game itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

You - like most - are MISSING the goddamn point. I PAY FOR and DEVELOP the games that
I want to play
. The games I envision - and which thousands are buying and playing, have micromanagement in it because that IS an integral part of the design and premise. Thats NEVER going to change.

I'm not asking you to change or take out the micromanagment aspects of the game. As a matter of fact that is the draw for me. I'm stating an opinion that asks for more balance between the action portion of the game and the tactical aspects of the game.

quote:
If I wanted to develop a run of the mill game that everyone (which is stupid in itself to even think that), I'd have done it MANY years ago.

MANY space sims that have come and gone and
FAILED
, continue to prove this point. Making a game easy, taking out micromanagement and developing a game that SOMEONE ELSE wants to play, is NOT the key to selling games. I develop games for a
NICHE
audience and I have absolutely
NO
intentions of deviating from that. I make money from it; I make a tidy profit, so I keep doing it. Every now and then, if I see places where things could be make simpler and easier without detracting from the core of the game design, I do it. And the VCF of my games, prove just that.

Just because my games don't sell millions of units doesn't mean SQUAT. A company like Activision can put out a mass market space sim and see if FLOP. Interplay, Particle Systems etc all all made space sims that FLOPPED - and NONE of those games had any micromanagement. X2, with all its North American ads, high reviews (for graphics mostly), has been out since LAST YEAR and has barely sold as many units as UC has in six months. Sure, the price might have something to do with it, but even at the current 2 to 1 ratio, that just kills that pricing argument right there. Even BCM/BCM Gold, sold more units than ALL of those space sims - including both X titles.

...and your point was what?

So money is not an issue? You don't want to make more? You are happy with your profits? It seems that I was mistaken if this is the case. However, I have a hard time with the notion that you are happy with your current profits. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.

quote:
NOTHING pisses me off more than some clueless person - on the OUTSIDE - telling me what kind of game I should be developing; when in fact there are thousands and thousands of people BUYING those games, playing and liking them for WHAT they are. Thats just presumptious and egotistical. I don't CARE about one thousand people who like 25% aspects of my game. I care about one hundred people who like 90% of my game.

So I am a "clueless person" on the "outside" who is "presumptious and egotistical." I am attempting to state an opinion as I actually like the games that you make. I own all of them and have followed the BC line for roughly 10 years. I may have a valid point, but you have to stop being so defensive in order to hear it.

quote:
My games do NOT pretend to be something else. Even with Dreamcatcher's
failed
attempt at shoehorning BCG into the action genre - complete with the requisite price drop - all they ended up doing was bringing out more gamers from the woodwork, who would otherwise NOT have had the opportunity to
TRY SOMETHING NEW
. Now they've seen whats possible, it is HIGHLY unlikely that they will ever settle for less in any game of its type and genre. So, what does that do? It means I get to sell those people the next game, because, guess what, THEY are the ones who keep me in business and one of the reasons I keep doing this.

The day I, for example, automate crew management in ANY of the BC games, is the day I declare to the BC fans that I've started going down the road of ruining the franchise. And I can do it in FIVE - yes, I said FIVE - lines of code. Or even by simply starting off all the crew with 100 AI. No more crew management. Three instructions later and you NEVER have to babysit ANY repairs or unit replacements, as long as you have a CE on board. Yeah, its in there - and thats how the AI is able to automate various aspects WITHOUT totally taking control. I
CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT
. Its MY choice. Its THE GAMES I want to develop.

You can make this game more accesible to the general gaming community and still maintain the core integrity of its design. You choose not to at this time, but who knows about the future. It reminds me of the time when you posted a statement about implementing Glide into the game. You were adament that would NEVER happen. Months later Glide was in the game because graphics became important and you had to keep up with the what the rest of the computer industry was doing. This time it is no different. Today you say NEVER. Next month you might say "MAYBE" and then you'll finally say "OK."

quote:

And what ANY of this has to do with a board that is primarily for PEOPLE WHO LIKE THE GAMES is beyond me. I've said it before, when I sell someone a game, I don't sell them a key to my house or the right to come here. Don't f*cking come here if you don't like the atmosphere. THIS board is NOT a part of the game, nor is it an extension.

I like games Derek. THATS WHY I COME HERE!!! I don't like the atmosphere that you create at times. So I'm saying something about it. If I'm not allowed to voice my opinion then ban me from the board. Otherwise relax and listen to some opinions even if you don't like them.

quote:

I don't develop games so that I would make friends (though I have made a few along the way) or organize cookouts. I develop games because it is FUN and getting my money back from publishers is usually half the fun. If someone shares my idea of fun, so be it. If they don't, it makes no goddamn difference to me. It is not my goal to inject my ideas or values into someone else and thats why people have different likes and dislikes. You - as a practicing (?) psychologist - should know that I am someone with a hardline resolve.

So my stating an opinion is "injecting" my ideas or values into you? Please. Your stubborness and reactionary attitude blinds you. I've been reading your posts long enough to know that you can be a hardass, but you can also be reasonable as well. In this case your being a hardass because your angry. So be it. BE ANGRY, just grow up enough to know that people like me really do value what you do.

quote:

I didn't ask anyone to be a "yes" man; all I ask is that people don't flood my board with rubbish and that all members be treated with respect. If someone doesn't like my game or the board atmosphere,
NOT
coming here is the very best way to let me know that. I don't want to hear about what the game should be, isn't or whatnot. What I listen to is how to improve the game based on
what it is and does
; not a radical change to what I envision. Being a LEADER is primarily about having the power and authority to make decisions (good, bad or ugly) and the guts to deal with the consequences thereafter. When I make decisions, I stick with them - and obviously a thousand bad reviews of my games because some reviewer
doesn't get it
, don't mean
squat
in the general scheme of things.

People are intimidated by you Derek. It is obvious from the posts on the board. Sure you like to run a tight ship and want to eliminate unwanted trash on the board. I can understand that, but if someone disagrees with you, posts a naive questions, or is confused, then you will set them straight. As a result you get "yes men" who probably have good ideas but are afraid to say anything for fear of being attacked. Does that help you? No. It limits what you could learn and what your game could become.

I for one do like your games. You can rant all you want it makes no difference to me. If you want an honest opinion I'll provide you with my point of view. However, based on this post it is obvious that you want to hear what is easy for you to hear. Not the real stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snip*

quote:


Originally posted by Nicholas Dogris, Ph.D.:

It reminds me of the time when you posted a statement about implementing Glide into the game. You were adament that would NEVER happen. Months later Glide was in the game because graphics became important and you had to keep up with the what the rest of the computer industry was doing. This time it is no different. Today you say NEVER. Next month you might say "MAYBE" and then you'll finally say "OK."


Wrong. That was not the issue. The issue was we did not have the technology to do it. And 3Dfx had not made a DOS Glide dev kit available. Back in those days, BC3K was still a DOS game and so Glide could not be implemented without me scraping the game and porting the whole thing to Windows and DirectX 3. Once - due to popular demand - 3Dfx developed a DOS based Glide API and made it available, I went ahead and implemented it since I didn't have to port the game to Windows. BC3K and BC3K 2.0 are both MSDOS based games. BCM was the first native Windows title in the BC series.

quote:


So money is not an issue? You don't want to make more? You are happy with your profits? It seems that I was mistaken if this is the case. However, I have a hard time with the notion that you are happy with your current profits. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.

Yes, you are wrong and you MISSED the point. The point is simple. Publishers are notorious for not paying their bills. Even when they are shipping and selling a game in droves. When an indie - like me (or Brad over at Stardock) - spends their own money and 2+ years of work, give it to a publisher in the hopes of getting paid - and that doesn't happen; it presents serious problem. During that time, you HAVE to take steps to stay in business until either the publishers pay (e.g. our publish is CONSISTENTLY late in their payments and EVERY SINGLE royalty statement has been incorrect and subjected to countless revisions by accounting. Brad, in almost a year, hasn't been paid a SINGLE dime on the game he gave to SF. And him and I are not alone either. The issue is in finding a publisher that actually PAYS their bills; eventually. And its a crap shoot.

As long as the publishers pay their goddamn bills, I am perfectly happy with the proceeds for my games; otherwise, I won't be doing them. How much losses can ANY company sustain over a 13+ year period and five games, without folding? Most companies fold in their first year and most (if not all) indies companies are either gone or bought out by larger publishers.

If (assuming you are a practitioner) you didn't get paid by the insurance companies and didn't have a way to keep afloat until they do (or if you don't have emergency plans), you would be out of business.

quote:


I like games Derek. THATS WHY I COME HERE!!! I don't like the atmosphere that you create at times. So I'm saying something about it. If I'm not allowed to voice my opinion then ban me from the board. Otherwise relax and listen to some opinions even if you don't like them.

Please read my post again. The excerpt you are responding to, has NOTHING to do with you. I was speaking in general terms to those who have NO business coming here if they don't like the game or the atmosphere. So, the you was not directed at you; and I thought that would have been obvious given the previous statements in the same paragraph.

Finally, you are missing the point. I don't WANT to make MY games accessible to every Tom, Dick and shithead. My games are developed for those who SHARE the idea of how these games are and should be. For me, if you can play my games and enjoy them, then you are - well to put it mildly - a more evolved gamer I think. Its the same rite of passage that prevents ardent fp gamers from ever buying a flight sim. There IS a reason why the game industry develops games for a DEMOGRAPHIC and a further reason why games are targeted a specific genres. And even THEN the games fail because you rarely get what you put in if you stray too far from what made a [previous] game work. I am not prepared to compromise ANYTHING for someone's idea of how things should be, in much the same way I can't come to you and tell you how to run your business in order to attract more clients. The reason? I don't give a shit. What works for you, works for you and your clients. I do what works for me and those who consistently BUY my games.

MY games will remain as they are. I'm not going to simplify, dummify or stupify them because they aren't designed and developed for stupid and simple minded dummies. There are MANY games like that those sorts of people can go buy and play.

quote:


People are intimidated by you Derek.

Thats their problem, not mine. I'm not responsible for their feelings. This is MY site and I can run it as I see fit. Its really that simple.

I think this concludes this off-topic tangent.

[ 08-28-2004, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an example of what happens when you piss around with what works. Iwar2 failed at retail. Particle Systems almost went under (well, they did) if it wasn't for them being bought out by another publisher (also a shakey one at that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Derek,

Thank you for your response. While I do not completely agree with your position I think I understand it more clearly now. Nevertheless please know that I am a UC/BC gamer that has appreciated the series since its inception. Perhapes we shall discuss this issue further the future. I'll be lurking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Derek,

Well it is time for me to eat crow here. After our last discussion I thought about what you said and re-read the CGW review. I decided that my game time with UC has not been enough to warrent a fair assessment of the game. I have played the game at 45-60 intervals, but nothing extended. So I decided to re-read everything and setup several two hour gaming intervals for a fair test. After doing this for roughly two weeks I have to say that I have a new view of the game. It really takes some time and dedication to get into one of your games and cannot be done without the proper amount of time. I am having a great time now and have found that once the learning curve is complete the game is not so hard. The main point is that I have found it to be FUN. So, I apologize for my statements and take it back. UC is a great game that works on many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries. Besides, you and I go way, way, way back, so, I have no idea what you're apologizing for. You tell it like it is - however misguided - and thats good enough for me.

Anyway, UC - Hostile Intent has just been announced and I have uploaded a bunch of early shots, movies etc. UCHI removes 80% of the complexity removed right there. Its a totally different kind of game. Anyway discuss over here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×