BCM Review @ GamesSpy

[Supreme Cmdr]

BCM review at GameSpy. Its not due out until Saturday, but they were kind enough to allow me to link to it. In light of the GameSpot review, I'm very appreciative. This one holds the trend : good game, so-so graphics etc.

All in all a well written and objective review - regardless of the score. Well worth reading.

Before you vets start clamouring about that graphics bit, I sent him email explaining why he can fly through things, including planets, while in hyperspace. Not a big deal.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Urza]

Not bad either, I'd say. You scored a 90 on the technical, which you definately deserved. As for the graphics, I agree. They don't wow me like some other games, but they're decent. All in all, good review.

[Wolferz]

Not a bad review all in all.

I still get the feeling that many of the reviewers have only skimmed the surface.

[Guest rtoolooze]

Quote, "I still get the feeling that many of the reviewers have only skimmed the surface."

Thats the feeling I get. And it still gets high marks! I wonder how they would react if they played long enough to put up with intruders stealing a certain artifact they worked so hard to get.

I guess they don't have time to find out how really amazing the AI is. Too bad as thats the meat and potatoes behind the game.

[Epsilon 5]

I agree with most of the comments inside, I think it's an excellent review that about reflects what I think of the game.

[richterm]

A decent review.

Not to drift off topic too much or to repeat too much of what anyone has said...but game reviewers (IMHO) have an impossible job.

Let us take my 2 current favorite games: BCM and Dark Age of Camelot (DAoC).

DAoC, for those of you who don't know, is a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game loosely based upon King Arthur/Celtic/Viking legends, where you play a heroic character who grows in strength and power...yada yada yada.

Here's the thing...DAoC has smashing reviews. Pegging the charts.

Here's the other thing...it shipped missing big chunks of the high end game, which requires players weeks to notice. It's a fun but flawed product, which is being patched often to address these flaws and to add new content. (sound familiar?)

So the same thing that works against a deep game like BCM works in favor of titles that have a good "first impression" but serious flaws that may take some time to manifest.

Is BCM a "better" game? Depends on what you want...once multiplayer is available, yes on all counts, for the social factor.

Would Joe Game Buyer know that based on reviews?

No way.

The Battlecruiser games have stood the test of time...even the shakiest versions won converts. BCM will continue to win fans on an ongoing basis...and I truly believe that the multiplayer aspect will be 100 times as addicting.

So I read the reviews, shake my head a bit and chuckle knowing that I have something that other gamers struggle for years to find...a deep game that rewards the effort and time spent with surprises and fun and moments of pure amazement.

Those are my 2 cents, anyway.

[Menchise]

The review was good overall, but I think Gamespy under-appreciated the interface design, which had some innovations of its own. When I first tried the final interface (with the clickable blips on the scope) I was very impressed, and still am. The interface was one of BC3K's weaknesses, but in BCM it's a great strength.

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

The review was good overall, but I think Gamespy under-appreciated the interface design, which had some innovations of its own. When I first tried the final interface (with the clickable blips on the scope) I was very impressed, and still am. The interface was one of BC3K's weaknesses, but in BCM it's a great strength.

---

I agree. But as we all discussed in another thread, when you have a limited number of space to do a review, you then tend to gleam over some aspects.

I think that because BC3K didn't have an immediately intuitive interface, that jaded memory prevails in the mind of some....its like group hypnotism.

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by richterm:

Here's the other thing...it shipped missing big chunks of the high end game, which requires players weeks to notice. It's a fun but flawed product, which is being patched often to address these flaws and to add new content. (sound familiar?)

---

uhm, not quite the same. Let me explain.

BCM shipped with the features I wanted to ship it with. Anything I added in the patches I did of my own volition and some were mp related.

DAoC on the other hand, shipped with missing features that were *required* by the game (kinda like WWIIO).

Multiplayer in a game, is just another feature, like say, Fleet C&C. So, I could just have easily have dropped a myriad of features and shipped BCM with mp that wasn't fully fleshed out or tested. Because the BC games have always been single-player, sacrificing that for just another feature, was something I had no plans to do. Unlike that other space sim.

Bug fixes are a different matter. Because no game can be 100% bug free, especially not such a massive game like BCM - which, it so happens, was in Beta for almost a year.

But generally, I get the point you were making.

[richterm]

SC-

Doh! Bad construction on my part...I did not mean to imply that BCM was missing anything "from the back of the box" --- which is one of the principal complaints concerning DAoC. I was actually trying to point out that BCM is being patched continually and that's a good thing...next time, I'll be a tad more careful.

[Guest Grayfox]

interesting review... i dont know what his thing is with the graphics... i actually found sitting on the moon in FP and looking at the distant sun/lens flare pretty damn good looking, or sitting in a firebase in south america and watching the sunrise... wow. I mean you can only stuff so much into a game... so what if the FPS mode doesnt look like Unreal 2??? i mean the game would be gigantic if it was. It does look good enough to satisfy someone who cares more about the scope and depth of the game, and gameplay, then someone who is all hardcore into FPS... if thats the case go buy Q3 or U2 when it comes out. And i dont think the guy really played the game long enough to fully experience how the AI is, or all the little features you can experience. It was a very comprehensive review, but i definitely think he overlooked alot of things probably because he was looking for a pretty space shoot em up sim like that OTHER space sim lol.

Cheers!

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by richterm:

SC-

Doh! Bad construction on my part...I did not mean to imply that BCM was missing anything "from the back of the box" --- which is one of the principal complaints concerning DAoC. I was actually trying to point out that BCM is being patched continually and that's a good thing...next time, I'll be a tad more careful.

---

hehe, no worries. I got the gist of what you meant. And I was just clearing the air.

[jefflackey]

As a long time writer in the industry (Computer Gaming World, Computer Games Magazine/Online, Gamespy, etc.) I'd like to throw my two cents in.

First - a LOT of game writing sucks. A couple of freelancer friends for whom I have a lot of respect (Tom Chick and Mark Asher) have a web site, www.quartertothree.com, on which they allowed me to write a venting piece on why game writing sucks that pretty well sums up my thoughts on that subject.

Second: it is a tough job to do well. You have a deadline (usually about two weeks) and you have a word count that is sometimes daunting. For example, I'm doing the BCM review for Computer Gaming World. I was given two weeks - I told them I'd only do it of they gave me an extra week, and in this case they agreed. Still, I have only three weeks to explore and test and play this game and then attempt to articulate to readers the heart and soul of the game. And, oh yeah, in only 500 words. That's what a one page review word count is now in CGW.

In 500 words there's no way you can explain every feature and nook and cranny of a game like BCM. So what you try to do is capture the feel of the game, the kind of experience a player will have. You want to steer gamers who would like the game to it, and gamers who would hate the game away from it. Pretty presumptious, eh? But that's the job.

I've been computer gaming since 1979, while I was in grad school, so I'm no kid. I remember the awe of booting up the first black and white Flight Simulator, the visceral thrill of the first Wizardy, the pure fun of games like Karateka and Choplifter. It amazes me sometimes at how fun so many of those games were, running off a 143K floppy and running in 48K of ram on a 1 MHz processor. And I marvel at how so many of today's 4 CD games with million dollar graphics are so completely soul-less.

Sorry for the ramble. And I have just started getting into BCM, starting as a Terran fighter pilot, wandering around and trying to get a feel for what this game is all about.

Cheers,

Jeff Lackey

[Ryan Eversole]

Jeff,

I'll start out by saying "Welcome" to the community. After reading your post I can't help but think that you have a difficult task ahead of you.I've had BCM for over a month now and I still find something new, that astonishes me, every day.

Although you can have a blast with the other character castes and occupations, you don't really see the true heart of the game until you play a Military commander character.

Once you start,and get through the initial awkward phase of trying to figure out what the hell is going on,and if you are gonna be able to do anything about it,the game takes on a life of it's own...er..well, a bunch of lives actually.

When you stop yelling at the computer because it's kickin' your butt and start yelling at Paul Resnig because his incompetent marines can't find the intruders that just stole your Alien artifacts, Or you feel that twinge of sadness because YOU'VE just made it through a really grueling battle,

but Hellraiser and Nightwing are floating out there in a fighter YOU sent them out in,ignoring your Return To Base command.....and why are they ignoring you?...because their almost intact fighter took a hit in the cockpit or life support and they are quite lifeless....dead....when you start caring where every person on your ship is and what they're doing....that's when you START to understand what BCM is about.

Anyway,hope you have fun with the game......

and Happy Holidays

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Stormshadow ]

[Supreme Cmdr]

I totally agree with Jeff and Denny Atkin, another industry vet (who has recently wrapped his BCM review for CGM - he also did the Beta preview for an earlier issue) discuss this from time to time. Even a couple of freelancers (e.g. Erik Sebelin) have posted about the same thing here. Its really difficult to capture the feel of a game. And once, as a developer or gamer, you know the game inside and out, its very easy to poke holes in it (OK, that Game Genie review was just embarrassing for them) when the reviewer slips up (ignorantly or otherwise) because you've had that much time with it; time being the luxury a reviewer doesn't have in most cases.

As we've seen, there are have been several BCM reviews with scores we thought were low or glaring holes in some of the premise conveyed, but some have really great writing (e.g. the GameSpy and PC Gamer ones) and do exactly what Jeff says want to steer gamers who would like the game to it, and gamers who would hate the game away from it and do a lot to convey what makes the game good and/or bad - all in one.

At the end of the day, it is always up to the gamer to determine if, even with a high or low score, good or bad writing, the game is their cup of tea.

Game review writing is like game development : you never have enough time* and at the end of the day, you never have enough space either.

*The features I disabled or left out of BCM due to time, (aside from multiplayer, which is another beast onto itself) are just about 3-4 months of dev and testing. No kidding. Hence the XP1 add-on. In fact, the VCF alone already shows some of those tweaks and additions creeping in every now and then, amidst the fixes.

[jefflackey]

I'll also add that I HATE "scores" on reviews. If I had my way, you'd write your review, and people would simply read it and that would be the sum of it. It's amazing how people can completely agree with everything you say in a review but go crazy because of a stars rating. People obsess over a 77% versus an 81%, or a 3.5 stars over 4.0, and it overshadows the text. For example: a game like BCM just screams for multiplayer - can you imaging how amazing that could be? Fine - in a review, you can say "this game could be incredible if a large scale multiplayer module were included. However, at this point multiplayer is not included, although Smart has indicated that he is working on adding multiplayer in a future game add-on." or something like that. Great - now you know multiplayer isn't included in the game, and that's all you need to know about that. So why does a reviewer have to decide how much to adjust some "rating" due to that aspect? I just happen to believe that readers are smart enough to understand your thoughts on a game by reading the text, and frankly I don't give a damn about people who are too lazy to read the text and think they can just look at a rating.

Some games are easy - the ones that totally suck, and the ones that "walk on water." But most games are somewhere in between. And even the good writers screw up sometimes. There are reviews that I've written that, later, I look at and say "what was I smoking when I wrote that???" And I find that the real pros are never completely satisfied with their articles. Just like the best developers are never completely satified with their product.

The one thing that should never go into a review is your opinion of the developer (or the PR flack, or the producer, etc.) Believe it or not, the hardest part of that is not keeping yourself from slamming a game because you had a bad experience with the developer or the company. The toughest part is knowing some good folks who have spent months and months and months of 18 hour days into a product, and wanting to lean towards giving the review a more positive slant than it deserves because you like and empathise with them. Ultimately a good writer doesn't work for the developers, or the game companies, or even the editors in many ways - you write for the readers. And you owe the readers and the developers and the editors and everyone else exactly the same thing: an articulate and fair review, that describes your educated opinion of the game in a way that can allow the reader to decide whether they would like it or not. In a few hundred words.

By the way - I say educated review because I'm a big believer that if you aren't very familiar with a genre, you can't really write an educated review. If you never fly flight sims, for example, you can't really appreciate how good IL-2 is (or how excrable Top Gun: Hornet's Nest is. )

Sorry for the ramble...

Jeff Lackey

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Lackey ]

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Lackey:

Sorry for the ramble...

Jeff Lackey

---

I couldn't agree more.

And please, ramble. We just luv it when the pros show up and ramble on our site. It kinda gives us all a warm fuzzy feeling. And am sure they'd rather listen to your ramblings than mine. Bastards.

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[jefflackey]

Heh - anyone can post on a fan forum BEFORE they post their review. Let's see if I have the cajones to come here after I play the game for a couple of weeks and then write and publish my review.

Jeff

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Lackey:

Heh - anyone can post on a fan forum BEFORE they post their review. Let's see if I have the cajones to come here after I play the game for a couple of weeks and then write and publish my review.

Jeff

---

LMAO!!!! Actually, we're pretty lenient on the media around here. After all, we can't go around pissing everyone off, can we? Thats my job.

Its bad enough with detractors on the prowl and me with a bullseye permanently tatooed on my back.

Besides, we can ALWAYS tell when a reviewer has actually PLAYED the game. And if he doesn't like it, but posts a review indicating same, we usually just shrug it off.....or roast him to a crisp intellectually of course if he just lies through his teeth (e.g. that Game Genie review. Man that was embarrassing).

The game is a niche and its not for everyone. We like it like that.

This is a NO FLAMES site (you've probably noticed) and we're not very forgiving if anyone breaks the rules. We flame elsewhere, but not here - at home.

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Mythandril]

An annoying trend that I have recently noticed in gaming reviews, both in print (PC Gamer, GCW) and on the internet is the frequent use of sophmoric humour throughout the review. Every reviewer, with a few exceptions, wants to be a comedian, often comparing game features to bodily functions. It seems to be in vogue to trash a game just to show off the writers comedic prowess.

It seems that these reviews are written by pre-pubescent boys, for pre-pubescent boys. In my opinion most reviews today have no value for the consumer, and I tend to ignore them. I miss the days when reviewers where objective, exposing the pros and cons of a given title.

I used to buy PC Gamer every month, but it has really become pathetic over the last year or so. Even Computer Gaming World used to more mature but they have fallen as well. Please no more L33T D3wdes.

[jefflackey]

Hey Myth,

I'm with you on reviews that sound like they were written by junior high kids trying to sound cool. As a writer who has been computer gaming for about 22 years, and is in my (ouch) 40s, I guarantee that you won't ever see the words "kick-ass" in my articles.

I think most of the freelancers (who write most of the articles) for CGW are older than most of the editors, although the EIC (Jeff Green) is 40 something. And I also know that most of the freelancers that I know well, including many that write for CGW, hate the infantile, "look at me!" kind of writing.

The most effective tool you've got: email the editor in chiefs of the magazines and websites and let them know if you like a writer, and let them know if you hate a writer. And be specific as to the "whys". Believe it or not, they pay attention to that. You get the behavior you reward.

Jeff Lackey

[Jokis]

Times like this, I really can rekindle my love for Gamespy. It's been knocked in the past for doing poorer reviews, when compared to Gamepspot (for example), but they obviously know how to review those underdog games when it matters. Just look at their 2001 awards compared to most gaming companies...very different winners.