On 09/23/03 I received a set of interview questions from Dreamcatcher media folks, indicating that it was from GameSpot. Apparently they had some agreement with GameSpot that they would be the first to run an interview with me, in relation to the Battlecruiser Generations re-branding to Universal Combat. This morning of 09/24/03, I first set eyes on the interview and then realized that it was NOT the interview I had submitted. Instead, it had been censored WITHOUT my permission. Via legal counsel GameSpot was asked to either post the original interview as written or pull the entire interview. They complied. Nevertheless the original is below.

Will Universal Combat be supporting the mod community in any way? 

To a large extent, it all depends on my post-ship commitments. While I will be including
the tools and some docs on the game CDROM, it will be up to the community
already familiar with previous tools, to wade through all the new stuff and start
cranking out useful mods. To be honest, the game is so huge and the tools so advanced,
that I doubt very much of most are going to spend much time with modding it. I envision
new game scenarios, mission zones and scenes, tweaking of unit stats etc etc, to be the
norm. When you go into things like total conversions - which is possible - you're talking
about a whole new ball of wax and I simply won't have time to fully support that sort of
commitment. But we'll see.

Why the name change? Any concerns about dropping "Battlecruiser" from the title? 

I have some concerns about dropping "Battlecruiser", but nothing that years of therapy 
can't fix. No seriously though, I did at first, but then it occurred to me that it probably
wasn't such a bad thing. And when you think about it, this franchise has only remained
true to its name. The game direction and focus changed back when Battlecruiser Millennium
was released in 2001. At that time, I not only added first person action to the game, I
also put in the ability for the player to control a vast variety of assets. In the previous
two games (BC3K, 1996 and BC3K v2.0, 1998), you only had access to a primary Battlecruiser 
and its support craft complement. The differences between the 2001 BCM and Interplay's 1998 
BC3K v2.0 are so vast, that the games are only similar in mythos, world and background. 

BCM was a major departure from what was old; hence the reason I probably couldn't find a 
publishing deal I liked and instead went with the EB exclusive. Couple that with the fact that I
had always said that Battlecruiser Generations was the last game in the series, and you'll
see how it all made sense in the end. I felt that in order to keep the franchise alive,
I had to take into the MMOG realms but not as a money making scheme, but rather a way
to keep this one franchise that got me this far, alive and kicking in the years to come.

While a major undertaking in itself, I'd rather retire it as an MMOG than have to spend 
two years funding and developing a game of this kind, only to find that publishers won't 
touch it because they'd rather stick with mass market formulae. So, dropping Battlecruiser 
from the name is not as traumatic as it would otherwise have been were things different. 
It all boils down to me "letting go" and venturing into other areas. To be honest, I'd never
have even considered it, were it not for Dreamcatcher. 

The UC name change came straight from Dreamcatcher and it took me quite by surprise
actually; especially since we were already in the late Beta stages as such wasn't a
good time to go pissing around with code revisions. That's when it dawned on me that
they were more inclined to change the name and ship the game; as their solution to
giving the game more exposure etc. While I, on the other hand, saw a bullseye on my
back and declined to tag along with that misplaced idea. 

As a developer, no matter how much you like your publisher - as indeed I do - and no 
matter how well oiled the machine is, one morning somebody is going to wake up over 
there and screw up your day. Forgetting who they're dealing with, one really has to 
wonder what that person was thinking that day. The day I found out that they were 
going to change the name of my game, was one such day for me. It didn't help that I 
was the last to know about it. And the more I think about it, the more I think that 
they probably didn't want to tell me from the onset because they didn't want to upset 
me. Or something. 

But surprisingly, when I found out - quite by accident actually - I  wasn't overly pissed or 
anything. I just chalked it down to just one of the many silly things (like some would say,
signing not one, but two Battlecruiser titles, for starters) that publishers do. At which point, 
rather than just blatantly discount the idea, I decided to discuss further. One of the decision 
makers ended up being the point man selected to present a case for this new focus. Because his 
presentation made absolute sense, I was left without any plausible reason to remain unflinching 
and rigid. I sure would have liked to be a fly on the wall in that room where this idea was
hatched. I can just hear it now "....ok great, erm, so who gets to go tell him?".

Over the course of a few days as I bounced ideas via phone and email back and forth, I 
told them that we weren't doing it unless I were allowed to - at the very 
least - make some revisions to the game which would cater to this new focus and keep us away 
from the controversy which would otherwise ensue if we were to foolishly ship "A Battlecruiser game"
in a box and try to pass it off - to some poor schmuck - as something that it wasn't. 
Sure, the avid Battlecruiser fan won't care what we called it, as long as it was in a
box and playable. But as a gamer, I wasn't prepared to have any of it. I had visions of 1996
all over again and so I held my ground and convinced them that we really needed to do this or
we were all going to be in a world of hurt. 

Publishers are more focused on maximizing (well doh!) sales of their products at every opportunity. 
They felt that we had a game that had progressed far beyond my original franchise design and 
development, and as such it was time to break loose and take the property in a different direction. 
Oh, and they probably wanted to shed that whole hardcore "Battlecruiser" thing while they were at it.
The idea made a lot of sense, but the execution of just renaming the game, would probably have 
sparked even more controversy. Why risk it? So, I risked my relationship with them and held my
ground. I knew that in the end, I'd win because I own the IP, am the developer and they
didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of shipping my game without my involvement (after the
1996 Take Two fiasco, I've made sure of this). In the end, I didn't see it as a win for me.
Instead, I regarded it as me being able to talk some sense into them - whether they had a choice
or not - and I prevailed in much the same way they succeeded in convincing me to even consider
such a heart attack inducing idea.

And it wasn't like they were trying to do something underhanded, dishonest or anything (or I won't be 
writing about it in interviews) like that. its just that publishers do this all the time. A game's 
name can change at any time, to fit the publisher's marketing (and focus group fueled rubbish) 
strategies. However, this wasn't any game we were talking about. And so considering the controversies 
which surround the franchise - and indeed yours truly - I felt that this was just going to be suicidal 
and that everyone was going to get burned regardless of how the game sold. In the end, it all worked 
out.

The name change seems to indicate a change in scope from the Battlecruiser series. Can you explain or elaborate on the new approach?

You know what's funny about all this? The game name should have been changed back when I developed
the previous title in 2001. The thought never crossed my mind at all. As much as the previous game was
vastly different from its predecessor, much so is this incarnation. The scope of the Battlecruiser
games has always been their biggest draw. There is nothing simple about a Battlecruiser game and
that's why it stands alone as its own genre bending enigma. Going from the original hard core
BCG design to the UC action focus boils down to ease of use, accessibility and less drudgery.
The technological aspects remain as is, even though some engine revisions were done in order to
cater more closely to this new focus. So, even though there are remnants of a Battlecruiser title
underneath, it is the top level aspects (e.g. game play, ease of use etc) which define what UC
truly is, compared to what BCG was. At the end of the day, one can think of UC as "Battlecruiser
Powered". Whether that's a good or bad thing is irrelevant; as long as it is fun to play and is
cutting edge enough to compete, its all good.

What lessons learned during the development of previous Battlecruiser games have found direct application while building Universal Combat?

None really. At least none that I hadn't already learned. Game design is not an exact science; but still 
there are those who are good at designing one type of game (e.g. a shooter) and others who are good at 
designing another type of game (e.g. a sim). You can't just switch at will without having the necessary 
experience, resources and wherewithal.

In my case, I find myself blessed because the Battlecruiser games have always merged several genres.
As such, it was just a matter of paying close attention to what it is I wanted to achieve in any
one aspect. In the case of UC, I had to set aside my "hard core" mind set and convince myself
that it was probably time to say goodbye to a small niche audience and enter the realm of the
wanton abuse that is the action game genre. The larger a fanbase becomes, the more fans and detractors
you attract along the way. And its not like I don't already have my own personal entourage of stalkers 
waiting to concoct something new at the drop of a keystroke. So if anything, I have learned from my experiences
with the Battlecruiser franchise that, at the very least, you can't win them all; no matter how hard
you try and what game you develop. 

What are "the greatest components of any war" as mentioned in the UC press release? 

There are many actually. For example, a typical combat engagement can simultaneously involve
space combat, planetary combat etc etc. To give you an idea, picture an excursion into a
hostile planetary base, in which the goal is to take out their command and control infrastructure.
There are many, many ways to achieve this and many more ways to thwart it. 

e.g. you could have orbital bombardment in order to soften up some of the land based high priority 
threats (e.g. SAM sites) - assuming you don't get taken out but an STO (Surface To Orbit) silo. That's 
from space. On the ground, you could have a group again taking out high priority targets from
naval vessels (e.g. subs, carriers, destroyers etc). While another group of marines storm the 
base perimeter using LCAC crafts deployed from naval assets. While all that is going on, air
cover can be provided by fighters while gun ships can also deploy forces into the base while
carrying out mud moving sorties even as manned and heavily armed vehicles and tanks tear across 
the landscape.

Basically it is combat at a grand scale and with NPCs or humans. UC, to date, has the largest asset 
DB of probably any game ever developed - and especially in this action genre. We're not talking a 
handful of vehicles or crafts here; we're talking dozens and dozens of space, land, air, sea assets, 
all with unique attributes and in a world powered by some of the most advanced game engines out there. 

True to it's Battlecruiser roots, UC is truly epic in scale but with a more visceral, rather than
sanitized approach to the fun factor.

What ambitions for the Battlecruiser franchise has Universal Combat been able to meet?

I would probably say its accessibility; but then we won't know for sure until the jury comes back.
I expect that the upcoming demo will give us some insight as to whether or not we've done the
right thing and succeeded in achieving this.

To what extent are you leaving Battlecruiser, the franchise and the franchise's gamers, behind?

Well, for one thing, I am truly tired of these highly complex and very, very risky games. It
has taken too much from me and I'm not sure that I can muster much more of it. Sure, any game
can take upwards of two years to develop, but the type of games I've developed have taken this
amount of time, though they would have benefited from more time, funding etc. So, it is always a
risk when I embark on yet another Battlecruiser title. 

In retrospect, I think I'm burned out to a certain extent. Hence the reason I decided to try something 
new and started working on the action based XBox title (which will hopefully debut at E3 next year) 
as a way to try something else and refresh my senses. BCG was to be the very last Battlecruiser title 
and the MMOG version was to keep that dream alive as long as those who wanted it were willing to pay 
to play it. I wanted to keep it alive (in the form of Battlecruiser On-line) in much the same way you have
a lot of age old MUDs and MMOG titles which you don't hear a lot about, but which are very
profitable and have a dedicated fan base who sustain it. That would be my Battlecruiser legacy;
the one I leave behind. 

At this point, I have no intentions of doing another Battlecruiser title. If UC takes off - as I suspect 
that it will - I will obviously grow it into a franchise. If UC becomes another franchise, each iteration 
will see more and more of the Battlecruiser mythos stripped, while retaining the fun elements we did
right in the original debut. One can only hope.