BC3KAD and PCXL Love/Hate Relationship

[thanatos]

What's the story with the decidely mixed treatment given to BC 3000A.D. by the soon to be discontinued PC Accelerator (PCXL or PCXaggerator) magazine?

Facts in observance:

1. PCXL 4/00 - actually puts the final 2.0x version demo on its Demo CD. This is how I came to be re-inducted as a BC3K commander all over again, having tried and failed with v1.0x at its initial release. Before the demo, I had only seen incomplete references to version 2.0x. This is GOOD.

2. PCXL 4/00 - does feature about BC Millennium. Preview seems to portray the game as very promising. This is GOOD.

3. PCXL 4/00 - in same article highlights hype of BC game(s), without clarification as to whether the reference is to BC3000AD v1.0x, which we all know how that sad song is sung, or to the contemporaneously previewed BCM? Comparisons to other superhype failures are illustrated for fun. Can you say "New Coke". Without clarity as to what is being superhyped, this is BAD.

4. PCXL 5/00 - in an article titled "The Ass Olympics", BC 3000 (no version given) wins silver medals in BUG VOLUME and INTERFACE, meaning it had lots of bugs and an interface which was difficult to find. Both screenshots from the game exhibit complex TacOps screens with their myriad of data points, all displayed on the magazine page in a 3.25 x 2.5 inch colored box. No reference to the v2.0x demo in the previous April 2000 issue, which does not resemble the version 1.0x game that is winning these dubious awards, is made. This is BAD, this is VERY BAD.

Readers often rely on what they see as an honest preview/review to help them know where to put their money. Why did the writers/editors feel they needed to pull out the BC3000 VERSION 1.0x? The other games were all Win 95/98 games recently released, and they can't even look at what BC3000 has become in its final form. I'm surprised they didn't place Wing Commander 1 on the BUGGINESS medal stand for the frequent crashes I used to experience when playing it 10 years ago on my then blazing 386.

Is this a example of a bias in the published media, where an unfinished product(v1.0x) that was prematurely released several years ago (a long, long time in PC games) is showcased with a recent demo of the finished product(v2.09), as well as a preview of the next up and coming product from the same designer?

SC, did you do something to the fine ladies and gentlemen at PCXL to make them BC3000 schizophrenic?

Doc Hoover

Commander

GCV John Paul Jones

[This message has been edited by thanatos (edited 04-22-2000).]

[This message has been edited by thanatos (edited 04-22-2000).]

[Guest aramike01]

Money.

That's what it's all about.

Bet you some of the aforementioned gold that, if the SC were to advertise heavily in their publication, BC3K would have a big gold award in some catagory known as innovation.

------------------

Cmdr. Michael Kristophers

Spectre Fleet

Commanding Officer, Spectre StarStation

ICV-Intrepid

Recruitment Officer

"You won't get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole!"

[Supreme Cmdr]

They just ran out of material. For one thing, they didn't even include Falcon4 in that round-up, as well as dozens of other games. Well, they're out of business, I'm not. So there.

anyway, here is my email to the EIC when I got that copy

=========================================

Hey ladies!

I have a bone to pick with whoever was responsible for those screw-ups on page 35 and 41.

Lets get started, and Mike, quit staring at the clock, this won't take long. Eric, wipe that 'huh?' look off your face; after all you are the art director and should've caught this.

First, let me say that I have nothing against the piece. As usual, the magazine continues to live up to its premise: the whacked out target audience that PC Gamer doesn't want.

page 35:

1. That screen shot was blatantly ripped from my web site or, someone ran the demo from the PCXL issue # 20 disk. What the joker who ripped it failed to realize is that it came from BC3K v2.0, released by Interplay in 12/98. The subsequent v2.08 derivatives released by GT Interactive on 10/99 and Jack Of All Games on 2/00, share the same interface, hence, the screen shot. Fleet command and control, along with all the options you see on the right side of that TacOps computer screen, never appear in the original Take2/Gametek release of

   BC3K v1.0x in '96 are unique to v2.0x.

2. The command to fire weapons has always been the same, since BC3K v1.0x and has not changed.

   fire laser - ENTER or joystick button1

   fire missile - SPACEBAR

3. BC3K v2.08 was a damn fine release and not a single review has said that it is as crash

   prone as this article tends to suggest. Several print and on-line mags, have reviewed it,

   with very good marks. Go to www.bc3000ad.com/reviews/index.shtml For one thing, it has

   sold more units that several of those multi-million duds you ladies give high scored to.

4. It is quite obvious, to me, that whoever put that piece together, was thinking about

   BC3K v1.0 and just wasn't brave enough to find a copy of it to take screen caps. Heck,

   they even muddled the product name: Its Battlecruiser 3000AD. Get it?

5. I can't imagine why you guys completely ignored Falcon 4 which should've taken the Silver

   award, with BC3K v1.0x taking the bronze. :-)

   Therefore, this information is misleading and incorrect.

page 41:

1. LOL!!

   Again, that screen shot came from BC3K v2.0x and sports the same 'clean screen' mode of the TacOps computer. The only interface for that screen, is already ON the screen in the form of the dialogue box on the top left and the selection list on the right. It is clear that this person hasn't played the game. Either that, or they already had worms in their ears prior to putting that piece together.

   In conclusion, hey Mike, if this is your new dream team, we're gonna have a lot of fun spending quality time together, pal! And if you ladies don't post a small correction and say something nice about me, am bringing my mom to E3. She packs a mean punch!

ps: This email, while it cites factually incorrect issues, was written using the same tongue-in-cheek premise as the PCXL magazine, anyone taking this too seriously and flaming me for it, is in for a world o' hurt. Heh, obscure GALCOM cult huh? Just wait.

[This message has been edited by Supreme Cmdr (edited 04-23-2000).]

[Parias]

ROFL SC, you MUST tell us if you get a response to that one

------------------

Cmdr. Parias

Spectre Fleet

Chief Engineer, Starstation Destiny

ICV-Galatae

ICQ:1293359

Staff member at HardNews

"I took this job because I just really love to blow sh*t up!"

[Guest]

Good PR skills their SC. Hey, their office is about 20 miles from where I work, I could go lean on them a bit if you need me to

(Besides it'll give me an excuse to meet Gia =)