Episode 46 is now available

[Turks]

Happy Birthday Dreamcast! This week Chris Taylor, CEO of Gas Powered Games, stopped by to share some knowledge about the future of Supreme Commander 2, Square Enix, and working with the Japanese. In addition to the interview, this week’s conversation explores, Guitar Hero 5 vs. The Beatles: Rock Band, Batman Arkham Asylum, and All Aspect Warfare. We also get into some hot topic discussions at the end and ultimately ask the question "Why do we play games?"

Post up any thoughts you have on the episode under this thread or send an e-mail to podcast@avault.com. Also, let us know why it is that you play video games. I think it will be interesting to see why it is we all devote so much time (and money) to this ever expanding medium.

The show is available in the usual locations. Don’t forget about this month’s Razer Giveaway! You won’t want to miss out on this one, so make sure that you register before the deadline!

[OmegaBob]

Ima not sure, but I think that the possible XB360 version might have been this game:
Angle of Attack
.
.

[Sregnar]

Isn't this just All Aspect all over again. It says it include all aspect and angle of attack, are they different?

[OmegaBob]

They are different.

The one Turks played, All Aspect Warfare, is the next in the long line of DS' sims.

Angel of Attack is the action version, that I think can be played with the Xbox 360 controller.

********************

@ Chris: YOU PUNK! I love my consoles! I just dislike like punks dissin the PC... (like Billy Boy). Who you meant to reference was: ALARIC

@ Billy: check yer PMs punk! Ima sending you nude pics of moi!

[OmegaBob]

@ TURKS! Woooo! I shall be there with ya (Left 4 Dead 2)

[OmegaBob]

(this is almost like a live blog as Ima listening as Ima commenting)

@ BILLY: hahaha - co-op

1 - You're EXACTLY like I am/was when I purchase some PC games before the 360 came out: I'd check to see if there is a co-op mode.

2 - WoW has co-op... the ULTIMATE in co-op! just saying....

[Turks]

Back when we had Derek Smart on we did not know he was working on Angle of Attack. All we talked about was All Aspect Warfare and he mentioned that he hoped to bring it to Xbox. Maybe that turned in to Angle of Attack. It seems Angle of Attack is just a flight sim with no shooter aspects.

I look forward to fending off the coming zombie apocalypse with you OBob. Also, please tell Billy to give Chris WOW. Thanks.

[Sregnar]

I bet Obob and Mark are the perfect pair to fight off the coming zombies.....

[Michele White]

Originally Posted by Sregnar

I bet Obob and Mark are the perfect pair to fight off the coming zombies.....

Bob will confuse them with his madness while Mark sneaks up behind them and drugs them.

[Michele White]

@Turks - We have a copy of AoA in Mike Smith's hands - might want to invite him on if you do anything with it.

[kyleh]

I'm sure Derek himself will show up presently if you say his name 3 times.

[Turks]

I'm surprised we made it this long without an appearance.

[dsmart]

Hi ladies.

Sorry I'm late (thanks for the heads-up Kyleh) - been busy working on an upcoming patch, meeting with publishers about our 2010 space/planetary combat MMO etc.

Didn't even know that a new podcast that mentioned the game was up. Mark (Turk) contacted me on 08/08 about coming back on the show. I replied the same day, but didn't hear back so I figured I'd just been bumped.

Regardless of the score (I don't care about scores), Mike did - imo - a decent review of the game which indicated to me that, like James over here, he too actually played the game. Unlike that hatchet* job that GameSpot did.

I don't care much for his "Skip-It" recommendation, but my guess is that it probably goes with the 2/5 score. Either way, considering the game's sales - and the fact that a full featured demo was out almost a month (and was updated several times) before the game - it appears that my target demographic is buying the game. And thats all that matters at the end of the day. Anyone who puts their buying decision solely at the hands of another's opinion, is an idiot who deserves to be separated from his money.

Anyone interested in the game should either check out the demo or at the very least (especially if you own the game or are thinking of getting it) watch the six tutorial movies I made.

Heck, despite some good reviews, the latest Wolfenstein is a mitigated retail disaster, pushing only 17K PC copies in its first month of release. They'd be lucky to see the brighter side of 50K units by the time the dust settles. For a triple-A title, thats a massive flop.
Section 8 isn't fairing any better incidentally and according to NPD, has yet to crack 25K units across all platforms. ArmA-II? Retail flop as well.

In such a crowded market and going up against better funded and marketed folks (most of whom are either already out of business or just one project shy of), I am quite happy to stick to the demographic that buys our games because - apart from having no interest in the Status Quo or the "me too" syndrome - we simply cannot compete outside of our niche without falling prey to the Status Quo and getting lost in the shuffle.

To answer the question about All Aspect Warfare vs Angle Of Attack, we only had one game (AAW) in development. We started working on AOA for a publisher (now out of business) who didn't end up finalizing the deal or even paying us cent one. The work was already started (from a proof-of-concept based on AAW) in good faith. When they folded, the game was already almost finished (since we had been fielding promises the whole time, not knowing wtf was going on. Until they collapsed and started selling off assets and such). By the time the dust settled, I had not one, but two games in development. You can read more about this over here.

AOA - a purely aerial combat game - (one review already up) was to be a PC/XB360 game (like H.A.W.X). Basically it is just an aerial combat game that uses the AAW game engine. Thats the best way to describe it. It has its own missions, campaign etc but the game world, engine, dynamics etc are 100% identical to the same features in AAW. And unlike AAW which has so many playable air and ground assets you'd be hard pressed to try them all, AOA only gives you access to four (of the twelve in the engine) fighters. Depending on how well the game does, we'll release other fighters and missions as DLC. AOA also only supports two (deathmatch and co-op) of six multiplayer modes. So there are major differences between the two titles.

Though we're still working with MS on the XB360 version (which will be different from the PC version), given then flakiness and penchant for royally screwing everyone at the last minute, I decided to just release the PC version and recoup some of my money rather than sit on a finished game indefinitely. So AOA is being sold stand-alone or as a bundle through Direct2Drive, Steam etc.

* re my on-going spat with them and which goes all the way back to my very first game. But I have plans for them this week. They'll never see it coming. It'll be classic Derek Smart.

[dsmart]

So I listened to the podcast. He played it for 5 or 10 mins and has all these opinions about the game. That is exactly the problem with guys like this. Seriously? 5 or 10 minutes? For a hardcore game? Once he started comparing it to BF1943 and saying that game did it better, he totally lost all credibility. But hey, it is an opinion and I can't say that I hold it against him.

Which brings me to my comment from over here

Given GameSpot’s review of my latest game, at first glance, this is a good idea though I don’t see the merit. Its not like anything a developer is going to say is going to change the review content, context or score. So why bother? Plus, it will just look like we’re whining or crying over sour grapes.

e.g. compare Mike (Avault) and James (OutOfEight) reviews to the hatchet job that GameSpot did of our latest game and you – if you have played the game like those two reviewers – will IMMEDIATELY notice that Brett Todd **never** made it past the first mission in the game. Heck, even his opening commentary already laid the foundation for what the review was: an attack on us and our hard work. The same thing they’ve been doing for years if you go and take a look at everything Derek Smart or 3000AD related on their site. Of course I’m an easy target, but thats besides the point.

Point is, you can still review a game you don’t like – even a bad game that you liked – an be objective and un-biased. The problem is that most people don’t seem to understand that some of these reviewers with an axe to grind, abuse this priviledge. The end result? They alienate their readers, lost all credibility etc. Yet people wonder why these sites are be being sold, closing, writers playing musical chairs with the various sites etc. Eventually there is nowhere to run. And THIS attitude is why – for the most part – reviews are becoming meaningless because gamers no longer pay any attention to them, other than to get the gist. Word of mouth and demos are the strongest method we have now of getting our games the recognition they deserve without unscrupulous writers and sites taking centerstage.

Of course when someone like the head EA honcho comes out and says that they gauge games by Metacritic scores (we’re all still laughing at that one) and of course reward their devs based on that, you not only see where the corruption starts but what the end result would be.

Some reviewers and sites treat our work and medium like we were on an episode of American Idol where it is OK to be rude, condescending and unprofessional. But Gold help us all if we – as developers – returned the favor. Of course, someone like me who has no PC fiber in his body, doesn’t care. When some of us (e.g. myself, Denis Dyack, Vin Desi etc) DO speak out, we’re attacked, vilified and such.

An opinion is protected speech, but most people don’t realize that regardless, sites do make money off those opinions which they *sell*. That makes it a financial gain and is no longer protected as such. But thats a whole other discussion.

Apart from all “shady business” and such going on at some sites (see GameStop), the advent of the Internet just means that more “no name, no experience” folks are wearing “reviewer” hats and doing hatchet review jobs in hopes of making a quick buck.

Make no mistake ALL of these sites make money off our work – be it a good, bad or ugly game. In retrospect, the more controversial, the more hits. Funny thing is that even the publishers know this and capitalize on it. Look no further than Ars latest editorial on EA’s Dante’s Inferno shenanigans and see how the cpm money trail works.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...-in-gaming.ars

[Turks]

Like I said on the show I was very disappointed when the game loaded up. I was hoping for this great combat game and what I found was not close to what I envisioned. This may be due to lack of experience I have with some of your previous titles and my assumption of what the game was going to be. There was nothing about the demo that made me want to play beyond the 5 to 10 minutes that I played. The difficult controls and disparity in visual quality turned me off.

I guess my comparison to BF1943 was due to the fact that Battlefield is fun. I don't want to watch 6 tutorial videos and read a 53 page manual to learn how to play a game. I think that by basically making this essential to do, you're turning away the majority of gamers. Gamers today seem to want their gaming fix and they want it now. In retrospect, of course BF1943 may not be the best comparison to be made but I think that out of all the new games on the market that involve shooting and vehicle combat, BF1943 is the best bang for your buck.

You say that "the advent of the Internet just means that more “no name, no experience” folks are wearing “reviewer” hats and doing hatchet review jobs in hopes of making a quick buck." For many of the large sites you may be correct but that's the beauty of Avault, we all volunteer for this. We do not make money for giving our opinions. We all have day jobs and are just regular gamers. If you notice, the advertising on the site is minimal and this is done intentionally. We pride ourselves on being independent and not being limited by the so called "shady business" portion of the industry. The podcast crew will always be honest and say what we feel. Those who listen to the show know that we are just regular gamers like them and that we spend our own money on games (Although it's tough to get Billy to buy any. Ha!). We represent ourselves as gamers and not professionals, hence the sometimes "unprofessional" things we may say on the show.

So in the end like I said on the show, I'm sure there are those who like your genre of games and will buy it. You made a game for them and I'm glad they are buying it. I think I just expected it to be more accessible and I actually wish it was. A true sandbox game letting you fight in any means you want seems like a great idea, but if it has a steep learning curve and is difficult to play, I think you really limit your potential market.

[dsmart]

Originally Posted by Turks

Like I said on the show I was very disappointed when the game loaded up. I was hoping for this great combat game and what I found was not close to what I envisioned. This may be due to lack of experience I have with some of your previous titles and my assumption of what the game was going to be. There was nothing about the demo that made me want to play beyond the 5 to 10 minutes that I played. The difficult controls and disparity in visual quality turned me off.

Indeed. And thats a very valid explanation. But nevertheless, as a professional, you do realize that when you play a hardcore game, for 5 to 10 mins, then call it rubbish, you leave yourself wide open to speculation.

To be honest, I was upset and stopped listening to the show. When I read Mike's review, I was perfectly fine (as I mentioned above) with it because he clearly played the game, highlighted the points that he didn't think "did it" for him etc. To the extent that it leaves the reader to make up their own minds. I felt that that his review was just fine, regardless of the score (since I don't care about that).

I guess my comparison to BF1943 was due to the fact that Battlefield is fun. I don't want to watch 6 tutorial videos and read a 53 page manual to learn how to play a game. I think that by basically making this essential to do, you're turning away the majority of gamers. Gamers today seem to want their gaming fix and they want it now. In retrospect, of course BF1943 may not be the best comparison to be made but I think that out of all the new games on the market that involve shooting and vehicle combat, BF1943 is the best bang for your buck.

But right there, you've just made my point.

This game was never billed to be that, nor was it designed for that crowd. Which part did you miss? The part where you couldn't run and gun in the first five minutes? Or the part where you had a 41* page manual?

The movies were made - by me - because several people asked for it, though others thought it was a waste of time. It all started here:

http://forums.steampowered.com/forum...d.php?t=950603

I did them because I felt that if it helped at least one person, that it was time well spent.

If you're going to make up your mind about a HARD CORE game in the first 5 to 10 minutes, you have absolutely NO BUSINESS writing about it from the perspective of a professional (which you are) who actually has something to say and which is worth listening to. Doing that, you lose credibility and is a disservice to your readers and listeners. Heck, I could've sent Mike a "wtf?" email when I read his review. I didn't. Why? Because he clearly played the game (as evidenced by the numerous emails we had in between) and reviewed it objectively. That is in contrast to for e.g. the GameSpot review and your missive.

Gamers like you are the problem with the industry and the reason why EA, Activision and everyone else, keep regurgitating the same old crap month after month. And yet, when the Status Quo fails (see every game e.g. Section 8, Wolfenstein etc which have tanked just this past qtr), people wonder why.

A bad game is a bad game. No two ways about it. So this is not about saying that a bad game is good. It is about being objective. Playing a game like this for 5 to 10 minutes (as admitted by you), then calling it crap is just pathetic and shameful.

You say that "the advent of the Internet just means that more “no name, no experience” folks are wearing “reviewer” hats and doing hatchet review jobs in hopes of making a quick buck." For many of the large sites you may be correct but that's the beauty of Avault, we all volunteer for this. We do not make money for giving our opinions. We all have day jobs and are just regular gamers. If you notice, the advertising on the site is minimal and this is done intentionally. We pride ourselves on being independent and not being limited by the so called "shady business" portion of the industry. The podcast crew will always be honest and say what we feel. Those who listen to the show know that we are just regular gamers like them and that we spend our own money on games (Although it's tough to get Billy to buy any. Ha!). We represent ourselves as gamers and not professionals, hence the sometimes "unprofessional" things we may say on the show.

My commentary had nothing to do with Avault or you for that matter. I'm talking about all the sites that sprout out and which host these unprofessional "reviews".

So in the end like I said on the show, I'm sure there are those who like your genre of games and will buy it. You made a game for them and I'm glad they are buying it. I think I just expected it to be more accessible and I actually wish it was. A true sandbox game letting you fight in any means you want seems like a great idea, but if it has a steep learning curve and is difficult to play, I think you really limit your potential market.

Indeed. But as I said, judging by the sales - as with all my games - my design decisions were exactly in line with my goals. Lets put it this way, we've moved on to game #15 and we're not breaking a sweat nor in any danger of going out of business or wondering where our next funding is coming from.

I am sadened that we had to have this exchange, but in truth we're all pros and we can't all see eye to eye all the time. This is just one of those times. My advice: stay clear of my games please.

*Its not 53 pages. You got that from Mike's review. He said that he added the game manual (41 pages) as well as the tutorial and keyboard commands in order to come up with 53. Crazy stuff that.

[Turks]

Originally Posted by dsmart

If you're going to make up your mind about a HARD CORE game in the first 5 to 10 minutes, you have absolutely NO BUSINESS writing about it from the perspective of a professional (which you are) who actually has something to say and which is worth listening to.

Believe me Derek I wish I was a true professional in this business but I am not. I am an average gamer who hosts a show with two buddies and gets the opportunity to have his voice heard by hundreds of listeners every week. I also get the opportunity to speak to developers every week and ask them questions that an average gamer would ask. My criticism of your game was by no means presented as a review. It was done under the segment called "The Weekly Adrenaline Shot." In the segment we discuss what we played during the week and this week I happened to have played the AAW demo. What I said about the game was by no means a review of the game. It was not pre-written or pre-determined and was spoken off the cuff.

I don't think gamers like me are the problem with this industry, rather I think gamers like me are the problem for developers like you. You make the game that you want to make and that's it. I fully respect you wanting to stick to the way you make games because obviously there is someone buying them. I think there should be no reason to be surprised or offended at the reviews or thoughts that people have on your title when it seems to be a very niche game. It seems like it would only appeal to fans of your previous titles or those who like playing difficult games, all of which I stated on the show.

I will take your advice and gladly steer clear of purchasing your games because they are surely not for me. I may check out the Xbox version of AAW though (if it gets released) because you said it will be different than the PC verison.

[Sregnar]

I can only say 2 things from my point of view(which is lame). First, Mark was commenting on the game, not a review(if it matters). Also, 5-10 minutes is enough time to make a decision about a game, especially if you really don't like the game. Mark was giving his opinion about the game, he's not being paid to review anything. We give our opinion on many games on our show, many times based on playing demo's for 5-10 minutes. We have never even tried to pretend to be reviewers, we simply state how we feel about the games we play. I hope this helps.

[dsmart]

Originally Posted by Turks

Believe me Derek I wish I was a true professional in this business but I am not. I am an average gamer who hosts a show with two buddies and gets the opportunity to have his voice heard by hundreds of listeners every week. I also get the opportunity to speak to developers every week and ask them questions that an average gamer would ask. My criticism of your game was by no means presented as a review. It was done under the segment called "The Weekly Adrenaline Shot." In the segment we discuss what we played during the week and this week I happened to have played the AAW demo. What I said about the game was by no means a review of the game.

I fully understand that. But still, those "few hundred" people who listen are doing so under the premise that you actually do know what you're talking about; professional or not.

By your submission, though I'm a 20+ year gaming vet, I should just say that since we don't have triple-A budgets, a publisher backing etc so we can't expect our games to be as good as those guys. Thats just a cop out. Especially when you consider that a) most of my games have sold more than triple-A games b) most of the devs/pubs who did triple-A games are already out of business - or on their way out. We're still here, trotting on - bad reviews and all.

Just because you're not a professional is no excuse to "look at" (I will refrain from saying "play") at a game like this - or any game for that matter - for 5 to 10 mins, then call it crap right off the bat.

There is a big difference between saying you don't like - or were disappointed by - a game or pointing out what you didn't like about it (to wit: Mike's review), than saying its crap. Then going on and on about it.

Not once, did you even say what the problem was. Instead, you went on to compare it to BF1943 and then talked about texturing? Seriously? In fact, in the first 5 to 10 mins of ANY segment (campaign, instant action, multiplayer) of the game, you don't even get to see .5% of the game. At all.

As if that wasn't bad enough, you found time to mention that the game's opening screen graphic was great and that it was the game's only selling point.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I know I would be - and I don't shame easily.

When you do something like that, what sort of message are you conveying to your listeners? To a guy like me, you're asking me to skip past your missive and get right to the interviews. In short, totally discounting anything you have to say about any game. That being the case, why bother? Just announce the guests and get on with the rest of the show.

It was not pre-written or pre-determined and was spoken off the cuff.

Apparently.

I don't think gamers like me are the problem with this industry, rather I think gamers like me are the problem for developers like you.

Indeed But thats the whole premise behind a "demographic". You're clearly not it.

You make the game that you want to make and that's it. I fully respect you wanting to stick to the way you make games because obviously there is someone buying them. I think there should be no reason to be surprised or offended at the reviews or thoughts that people have on your title when it seems to be a very niche game. It seems like it would only appeal to fans of your previous titles or those who like playing difficult games, all of which I stated on the show.

You're MISSING the point!!! This has NOTHING to do with that. It has to do with YOU playing a hardcore niche game for "5 to 10" minutes and calling it crap. Over and over and over - and with no objectivity to speak of. Don't you get it?

How about this. Someone starts to listen to the Avault podcast and after 5 to 10 mins, calls it crap and closes the page. Then that person goes on to comment on how crap it was etc etc without even listening to or even getting through 25% of it.

I will take your advice and gladly steer clear of purchasing your games because they are surely not for me. I may check out the Xbox version of AAW though (if it gets released) because you said it will be different than the PC verison.

There is no XB360 version of AAW. I cancelled it back in Feb when the publisher started having troubles and missed a major milestone payment/discussion. The only game that has any chance of coming out on the XB360 directly from us - since we don't need a publisher for XBLA - is Angle Of Attack. And thats because it is a much - much - smaller game and which doesn't - and never did - require a retail release. We're working with MS on that and we'll see how that goes and if its even worth finishing, given all the crap thats going on with XBLA these days.

[Turks]

That's the beauty of Podcasts, people can fast forward and rewind through them. That's why we announce who the guest is at the beginning of the show and if they choose to skip to the guest that's their choice. Also, people who are regular listeners of the show know that we are not pro's and half the time disagree with what we have to say. We model the show after a radio talk show and just flow with it but we have real conversations that real gamers have and the listeners are there to tune in. I don't think you get the concept of the show.

In terms of my problems with the game I said right off the bat that it does not look good visually. It looks very unpolished and unfinished. It's as if the game was rushed to release although I know it was not. You haven't mentioned my comment on this at all and to me the visuals are the most glaring problem. That right there turned me off and then like I said repeatedly the controls are difficult and not for me. I know graphics aren't everything but they sure help in a very saturated market. I know though that this is a hardcore game and you don't care about the mass market and that's fine.

I'm sorry to have upset you so much by the comments I made about your game. It appears you are sensitive to criticism even if it is based on 5 to 10 minutes of gameplay. A demo is meant to help people make a purchasing decision. I am glad you released it because it helped me decide not to purchase the game. Our listeners know the kinds of games I like and dislike and hopefully my opinion will help them. If 5 to 10 minutes are not enough in your mind then why would you even care what I have to say?

An opinion is an opinion and mine has been made.