I can't be bothered with those folks any more. We've had a lot of emails going back and forth. Here are the latest From/To Martin (reviews editor)
>Hi Derek,
>
>I've just got back from a bout of Influenza, so aplogies for the delayed
>reply to your emails. Sorry to hear that >To be honest, I'm quite shocked at your reaction to
>the review, stating that you've been ambushed and that the review was not
>a review but an attack. Sure, I understand that you're annoyed at the
>score. BCM is your baby and obviously it's never nice to hear criticism of
>something you've invested so much time into. However, as reviews editor I
>decided that the best person to give the game to was Paul Presley, a
>fourteen year veteran of PC games journalism - one of the most respected
>games journos in the UK (and not a "git" as you call him in your email),
>and one of the most dedicated gamers I have ever met in my life. Paul
>invested a hell of a lot of time in the game, so that he could be sure of
>getting his review right. Both he and I knew that a game with such a huge
>scope for gameplay deserved a huge amount of attention and time. It
>received both. Paul ran the game on six different Hi-spec machines in the
>office, experiencing varying degrees of problems and bugs on each. We
>reviewed from the boxed copy of course, and the fact that the game would
>hardly run until we patched it several times with the multitude of patches
>which came out after its release should surely speak for itself. I'm glad
>that your game is selling well, and I've taken on board all of your
>comments. It's just a shame you couldn't do so graciously with ours. Well, thanks for even responding. While I believe what you're telling me,
I, like so many others (even most of the industry reviewers who have
reviewed the game) are just puzzled by the sentiments in the review and
indeed the message therein. The score is not really that important because
everyone knows that it is mostly difficult to score games - especially the
BC games. Frankly, while YOU may have a plausible and reasonable explanation, I'm NOT
for one minute, buying any it. To wit: "If you can get past the bugs you soon seen that while the potential for a
mammoth game is there, the actual implementation - not to put too fine a
point on it - sucks." Then, he posts a Windows BSOD with a caption. How come you guys don't do
the same for other games? Case in point, I was playing RTCW this weekend
and had the SAME problem (as do MANY others). This can happen for a variety
of reasons - and not just in BCM. To make things worse, he says "This is how 90 per cent of your Battlecruiser sessions will end. Guaranteed.
Even with the patches." Not only is that pure and utter bollocks, I'm quite shocked that YOU of all people,
would let that in the magazine - legal implications notwithstanding. Paul goes and spends an ENTIRE paragraph on my design decisions. Fourteen year
vet or not, isn't the NORMAL reviewing process supposed to be about what the
game IS and not what the reviewer wants it TO BE? Some examples: There are 25+ castes and 13 alien nations in the game. The primary role in the
game - and *all* BC games - has been as a Terran Military Commander (GALCOM). In BCM, a
campaign for the main GALCOM opposition (The Insurgents) was also included. It
says that right there on p8 paragraph 4 of the manual. The design never called
for a campaign for ALL the race+caste combinations (e.g. how do you create a
campaign for a Trader caste?). While in ROAM (non-campaign) you can use any
of the race/caste combos. The history of the game world (in the appendix) is clear and
those familiar with it (or have read it), know what to do. Trading is very lucrative.
And ALL these have been around since the BC idea was conceived back in the early
nineties. As such, they are part of my world - AS ORIGINALLY CREATED. In multiplayer,
there are significant benefits to being a trader and not part of a conflict. How?
Because you can get into areas where other castes can't and e.g. be able to
sell arms to both sides of a particular conflict. And as for being a defenseless trader. Thats just more rubbish. You can choose
armed or unarmed transports. PLUS, you get an escort when you launch from a
station. PLUS, traders are NOT attacked or engaged as often as, say, military
castes. Why? because they are flagged as harmless. Traders, Scientists etc only
have to avoid raiders in the space ways. If you read the game manual + appendix data and use the tactics provided, you will
NEVER be boarded. And even if you DO get boarded, you are more than equipped to deal
with it and also prevent stealing of your crafts. And the reason you CANNOT board
other ships or stations, is because I was NEVER designed to do that. That feature
has NEVER been in ANY BC game. Period. In fact, it is such a complex venture (if
you think my AI is just about rolling of a dice, then neither one of you knows
*anything* about my games) that its not as simple as beaming troops to a ship.
You HAVE to handle it accordingly - then you have to figure out HOW to know
what the hell is going on at the target - a way to extract your team - what
to do once they've beamed over etc. This feature has been requested since the first
BC title, but I never once considered doing it (perhaps in XP1 addon) because it
is quite complex. The fps mode was designed specifically for enemy base incursion. Why is that
wasted? And yes, you CAN order your marines as a team IF you know how to do it.
(I didn't know that there was anything confusing about point-and-click). And they
will stand around (or take cover) if they do not detect enemy, are out of ammo or
do not have the proper weapon to engage. Thats why you use Tactical/Crew and
ensure that whoever you are beaming down to a hostile base, is equiped to do so.
In fact, there are several posts about tactics used by gamers to do JUST THAT. I could go on and on and on and pick apart EVERY aspect of that attack piece (no,
its not a review in the very least) with plausible AND factual data, but I'm not
going to waste my time because this is all after-the-fact now. I am only responding
because you were kind enough to take time out to reply to my original post. I mean, here is another example of what I'm talking about.... "Hence Battlecruiser comes off looking ill-thought-through, amateurishly coded and
riddled with holes." Ill-thought-through?!? Amateurishly coded (!)?!? Isn't that libelous? ESPECIALLY
for a magazine of PCZ's calibre? C'mon Martin, was Paul playing a DIFFERENT game from the rest of the world - and
indeed industry veterans (Andy Mahood (PCG), Denny Atkin (CGM), Jeff Lackey* (CGW)
et al)? WHY was I not contacted** if Paul was having config problems (which is
EXACTLY what it sounds like)? WHY was this NOT mentioned in Richie's emails (which
I sent to you) to me? In fact, it wasn't even mentioned. Period. Several other reviews have popped up since the PC Zone one and neither of them even
remotely echo ANYTHING in that review. Martin, as I mentioned before, I am more shocked than pissed at the review. Even
X:BTF was and IS riddled with bugs. And even IWar2 had bugs at release. I just went
back and read BOTH of those reviews in PCX back issues. NONE of them even talk about
those and the general prose of those reviews is a lot more positive than the BCM one. The point? These games are all different and are geared toward different gamers, but this
review is borderline attrocious. And as I've mentioned before, seems to be nothing
more than an attack piece - a sort of payback for that whole PCGPCZ skirmish
over the BCM demo exclusives back in 2001. That sort of accusation means that somebody
at the top (Richie?) had to be involved.For one thing, Richie clearly told me that there
were TWO of them working on the review. In the end Paul's name was tagged to the review.
This leads me to believe that if there was anything nefarious going on, that would be the
reason for Richie to excuse himself from it - seeing that it was him and I going through that
whole demo skirmish and him doing a ludicrous review such as this, would just stick out
like a sore thumb. And is it by pure coincidence that PCZ gave the game the most scathing review and lowest
score to date? Think about that for a minute. Lets put it this way. I have a LOT of friends and contacts in the industry and media (you
probably already know this) and a lot of people are talking about this PCZ farce. This is
a VERY small industry and one in which alliances shift all the time, people move around etc.
Whatever went on here, will come out. And as such, I'll be the first to know about it. Guaranteed.
It is all just a matter of time. And if its one thing I have, it is both time and patience
(tenacity doesn't even factor in here, because with me, it is a given). I won't soon forget. Anyway, I asked you to look into this, knowing that there wasn't much that you could do
about it anyway. Nevertheless, thanks for taking the time to respond; and I hope you feel
better. cheers *=====================
ANONYMOUS POSTER: Well, Battlecruiser Millennium has been out for a while now, and my friend at EB says it's selling
pretty well at his store. So what's the score, reviewers? All those years drooling at the prospect of this latest Derek Smart
venture to pick apart, but I haven't seen a word. Has anyone here played it? JEFF LACKEY: I just turned in a review for CGW. Forgetting Derek Smart and all of the history, I thought BCM was an
interesting game. Definitely not for everyone. What it offers is a very high learning curve, an
enormous number of options, and at heart a huge universe in which to role play. There's no "story", and not much interaction in terms of news from around the universe, etc. I.e.,
there's no game driven story at all. However, if you're the kind who can role play in your mind,
creating a story as you wander the universe in a completely free-form mode, doing everything from
fighting to trading to smuggling, etc. you might really like it. I didn't see any of the instability
issues I've seen some people complain about (ran it on three very different machines) and while the
learning curve is steep, if you study the manual and the online appendix, pretty much everything
you need is there. Frankly, I think the graphics do the job just fine. If you're looking for a flashy game with lots of
fancy graphics, this probably isn't the game for you anyway. And there is a lot of stuff going on. I just ran into a huge battle going on around an orbiting station,
with space marines zapping each other, fighters going after each other, a couple of battlecruisers
throwing missiles left and right, etc. And on the periphery are mercenary traders, sitting and watching
and waiting, and then running in and grabbing cargo pods (the space debris, basically) from destroyed
ships, and then ducking back out to the periphery. I jumped in with my carrier and launched a couple
of fighters to help protect the station, they got a couple of kills, and now I've got intruders that
have invaded my ship. I forgot to shut down the power to my launch control (doh!) and at least one of
them has escaped and stolen one of my shuttles. Arghh! After the battle was over, there was a disabled cruiser - I'm going to try to have one of my marines get
into a shuttle and tow it to a station for some extra cash, and the added prestige. Then I need to go
back to another star system and recover a mining drone that I left on a moon to see if it loaded up
with any rare minerals. That's the typical type of action in the game. Again, there is no game generated story - no radio broadcast
from a commanding officer saying "Lackey! Quick! Head to system so and so, we've got a major insurgent
uprising, and you need to put it down!" (at least not in the free-form roam mode, which is the core of
the program.) There's no story in which two of your fighter pilots are having an affair, or one of your
engineers is jealous of your job, etc. There's no news reports that something odd is going on in a certain
system. Etc. But - there is a very large universe with a lot of "stuff" going on, and if you are the type
who is willing to create the role playing in your mind, the game can be a lot of fun. I'm still playing it after turning in the review. I was very surprised, frankly - I expected a much poorer game.
===================== **===================== JOSE AYALA (GAMING GROOVE): I've known Derek Smart for the last three years now, and while he might be one of the most outspoken characters in the gaming industry today, he does something that not many developers are willing to do these days, and that's to listen to their fans. Like Someguy said, Derek tighyly controls the 3000AD messageboards because a.) they are there only for owners of the game, (you need to send in your CD Key and then wait for the mods or Derek himself to approve your account), that seek technical support or to be part of the BC community and b.) it is his stomping grounds. Personally, I like the fact that he keeps a tight control on the forums. After all, I'm sure most of you don't like to read through constant flames about Derek or the BC games. There are plenty of boards out there already that specialize in just that. If you want to try, post something about Derek on the Voodoo Extreme forums and you'll see what I mean... : ) When I go to the 3000AD forums, I just want to interact with other gamers and share battle stories and experiences. What's so wrong in showing respect towards other people? The 3000AD crew won't allow any flames towards other members or the 3000AD team. And again, what's so wrong with that? Even if Derek is outspoken, he is one of the most professional and respectful persons out there, when the person deserves to be treated respectfully. As for the BC franchise, no one is arguing the fact that the first game was released prematurely. This topic has already had enough coverage to last a lifetime. But the truth of the matter is that BC3K v 2.09 and BCM do deliver the goods. Both games give players a totally free-form universe where they can do whatever they want to do, something that hasn't really been delivered on the PC since Elite. Freelancer promised a similar universe, but Digital Anvil is mum on the subject, so is Microsoft. The game does contain detailed stories for all the races on the game, as well as a nice conflict between GALCOM and the Gammulans, which is most apparent when people play through the Advanced Campaign Module. Still, even in Roam mode, players can follow this storyline depending on the race and caste chosen. Yes, it does ask of gamers to roleplay in their minds, like some posters have stated here, but with so many possibilities already offered by the free-form universe, this is quite easy to get into. The 3000AD team has stated on coutless occasions that the BC games are niche titles...not everyone will be able to get into the game. And personally, that's fine with me. After waiting so long for other companies to deliver similar experiences, (who can forget X: Beyond The Frontier, Freelancer, etc), the BC series does deliver the goods. I won't kid anyone though, you will need to dedicate at least two to three days in order to learn the control system and nuances of controlling your ship, personnel, fleet, etc. But the truth is that the manual and the online docs cover everything you need. Considering some complex sims are shipping with only electronic docs, (like MS Flight Simulator 2002), and the complexity of the game itself, this was a wise decision. I guess my point is that most people have read the extensive coverage given to the release of the first game that they won't give BCM the shot it deserves. The truth of the matter is that 3000AD always stood by their product; they fixed it, released it for free, re-released as a bargain product with Interplay, all of which lead to the release of BCM. And just like they did with BC3K, 3000AD has already provided excellent support for the game. (Most people tend to think Derek does all the work at 3000AD, but the truth is that he has an international team of programmers that also deserve a large part of the credit). My point is that people should give the game a chance. The experience is amazing, and with the support shown to this day and in the past, it should only get better from this point on. If you didn't like it in the past, you should try it again now. Even if you don't like Derek, the fact remains that BCM is an excellent simulation. =====================
From Dave (editor)
I know that you're in correspondance with Martin, my reviews editor, over
this, but there are certain points in your e-mail which I must respond to.
"And as I've mentioned before, seems to be nothing more than an attack
piece - a sort of payback for that whole PCGPCZ skirmish over the BCM
demo exclusives back in 2001."
PC Zone has never and will never compromise our integrity over an exclusive
demo or review going elsewhere. And to be honest the BCM demo was never a
high priority for us - in terms of the demo it was unlikely to add much to
our sales figures. "And is it by pure coincidence that PCZ gave the game the most scathing
review and lowest score to date? Think about that for a minute."
I refer you back to the statement above. We are a professional magazine and
never have a hidden agenda. Remarks like this prove are highly inflammatory
and unprofessional, especially given your earlier remarks about libel. "Lets put it this way. I have a LOT of friends and contacts in the industry
and media (you probably already know this) and a lot of people are talking
about this PCZ farce. This is a VERY small industry and one in which
alliances shift all the time, people move around etc. Whatever went on here,
will come out. And as such, I'll be the first to know about it. Guaranteed.
It is all just a matter of time. And if its one thing I have, it is both
time and patience (tenacity doesn't even factor in here, because with me, it
is a given)."
You don't need patience. The truth is already out - we reviewed the game as
it arrived out of the box. If we're given early code then we go back to
developers with issue. If we review a box copy then we expect it to work out
of the box, especially on six different machines in the office. We have
never had a problem with any other game like this. If it's of any interest we're starting a new reviews update section in the
magazine, purely to look at buggy products that are considerably improved by
patches. When we're happy that the patch-go-round has finished with BCM we
will take another look and review it as we see fit. This is the same for any
game.
To round off, we're always happy to talk over reviews and explain ourselves.
We're open, as I hope you are, to constructive criticism.
Cheers, Dave Woods
To Dave
Hi Dave,
I think we've all spent enough time on this already and there's nothing
more for me to add. My opinions remain unchanged and I stand by them as
originally written.
I'll take what you said into account and leave it at that. If you guys wish
to revisit the game (e.g. once XP1 is released this Summer), fair enough.
Your call. Quite frankly, at this point, I really don't care what you guys
do or don't do. Its your mag. Its my game. At the end of the day, we all do
whats in the best interests of our respective properties.
As I said before: I won't soon forget. Period.
cheers
ps: I have a few PCZ reader letters bound for PCZ which were also sent to me.
You might want to read them.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]
