Chris Taylor's opinions on PA

As good as that sounds, and as much as I want everyone to have a job, I am not sure sure Uber will do this. They already have what they need, and one of the reasons this budget will work for making PA is because they are working with a smaller team than usual companies. They've already hired extra people and they might hire maybe a few more but who knows who they are thinking of acquiring next if they do.

GPG is actually no longer full of people, mind you.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/18/big-l ... red-games/

Supcom 2 was a huge dissapointment for those that expected to play a PC RTS.
CT talked about the flow field and engine improvements to sell the game.

At the time I preordered it like many others without even considering it would be a drastically different game.
Had CT given it some other name which would make clear it would be another RTS in the supcom universe, people would not have felt burned.

GPG had a great community that could have grown into something beautifull.
But it basically got torn apart due to the decisions GPG made.

I do not feel the need to pledge the kickstarter now, not because I am mad at CT, but just because I do not get that epic feeling I got once I saw the kickstarter for PA.
(Or when I first saw TA or Supcom/FA)
Wildman does not look very appealing to me, I am not waiting for another single player game.

Since everybody has broadband internet these days and all kind of mobile devices, for me a game must be all about online content. Playing games is like hanging out with your friends, I talk to them on TS3 (which ive been running for years) and play games with them.

(Talking about mobile devices .. we could do with some android apps to see what is going on in the PA universe once the game has been launched. stats/tourneys ..)

Because they took support away from GPG at a critical juncture over a game that was fine and just not their taste, and proceeded to do absolutely everything they could to trash GPG and supcom 2's name. It's the second that burns me more, because I think SupCom2 could have been a fairly sustainable game if it wasn't for the keening that emitted from the FA playerbase that repelled all but a stalwart few from playing it.

Most of the complaints were on message boards perused by the hardcore gamers. We were disappointed in the game and spoke to others who felt the same. The mass market gamer would probably go to a review site or metacritic, both of which gave positive if not glowing reviews for the game.

It's unreasonable to expect the core gamers to not speak their minds on the game because it might dissuade others from purchasing the game. Sup Com 2 didn't live up to the FA communities expectations and didn't appeal to the mass market gamer either. The only ones who are at fault are whoever decided to dumb the game down in search of a wider audience. I can't really blame them as they probably expected it to make the game more approachable but ultimately drove away the core without attracting the mass market.

To me you just do not want to see that a lot of people did not like supcom 2 for what it was.
Especially the supcom/FA community has always been know to be a real supportive and dedicated one with a lot of modders. If such a community an mass is dissapointed in supcom2 then they have good reasons for it ! (making a main stream/console game when you have a hardcore PC fan base might not be the brightest of ideas, especially if there is no clear communication about it.)

That being said, I do believe that most people that did not like supcom2 were hoping K&C could become a good game. (personally I prefer sci-fi over fantasy)
Wildman on the other hand ... no idea, does not look that appealing to me, might be wrong though.

I did post this in another thread just right now, but it also belongs in here I guess...
It is a nice little article that explains why GPG is in this situation right now and why I think Kickstarter is becoming more and more important for comanies like Uber and GPG and others.

http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/ ... ered_Games

That's written by Brad Wardell, the founder of the publisher named Stardock? Coincidentally I just saw that name mentioned by one of the ex-employees in the Rock Paper Shotgun comments.

Eschwen says:

I never said Demigod was evil. I worked on it. It was a beautiful and fun game. There were many many issues that resulted in the Demigod release failures, and you only know one side of that story: Brad Wardell’s. That’s primarily because Brad likes to play internet warrior more than anyone at GPG, most of whom really preferred to make games. General vitriol towards GPG is the result of us taking the high road and acting like professionals when our partner spewed hate and misinformation as far and as wide as possible.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01 ... nt-1176703

Brad Wardell does like to play internet warrior.

Well, I did not see Brad Wardell spewed hate on internet during the Demigod's failed launching, but he does shirked stardock's responsibility a lot, the netcode of Demigod is much worse than many free games I played.

Are you allowed to say what they were? (if not, maybe a vague description of what type of games they were?) I'm very curious what other GPG games we could have been playing if things turned out differently..

I still wish Amen: The Awakening got finished..

Their reasons were:
* Too cartoony (pure taste, fine to dislike it, not fine to say it's objectively bad because of it)
* "Console port" (an absolute lie, SupCom 2 was developed primarily for PCs and the Xbox version was a branch off, if anything it was "ported" from PCs to consoles)
* Not enough modding support (they have a minor point here, but mods WERE possible and they were just being stubborn and arguably pampered by all the mod support in FA)
* Shallow (which is basically "i don't want to learn it so it must not be worth anything")
* Too small scale (it was still huuuuge scale, and again, this is a taste thing)
* Bad story (you really played SupCom mainly for the story? Not saying it was bad, but it's like complaining that visual novels have shallow gameplay)
* Research system "sucked" (not really, it just produced a different gameplay paradigm than the tech system of FA, which most players weren't willing to adapt to

What it was is a sequel that dared to change stuff, and GPG got beat up by the community for it. It's funny, because I'd bet some of those very same people complain about Kawadoody making version N+1 with the only difference being a few new maps and models every year.

So, we're supposed to support games we don't like because... why exactly?

Your argument boils down to, people should have liked it, because I liked it. Why don't people like things I like?

And that's a seriously bad argument.

There. That makes a bit more sense, and gets straight to the point.

All i wanted was people to not push their opinions as fact (i'll get to mine in a moment). Ask any FA player about SC2 and he'd tell you it's a crappy console port with shallow gameplay and not enough "awesomeness". He wouldn't say "I don't like it because I don't think it works as a sequel to FA, but it's something you could very well like".

And thats the position I hold. I don't care that people dislike it. I'm fine with that. It's great you have your own opinion. It's when you start damaging my experience because you feel like the product you hate shouldn't exist that I object. And it most definitely damages my experience when I can't read much of anything about SC2 without seeing the text practically ooze arrogant hatred over the game that ruined one's precious SupCom and how it should never have existed in the first place.

I've never seen anybody complain that SupCom 2 is a console-portt.
Most FA-players who dislike SupCom2 say stuff like "it sucks", sure. But they say that as their own opinion. Sure some other people might like it. That should be taken for granted, any review of a game in the end is totally subjective. FA-loving people just dislike SupCom2 because it doesn't really deserve the name "SupCom", since it basically fails to play like SupCom at all.
It is an okay-RTS, but that's it.
You can't ask people to spread good will about a game they don't like. SupCom2 simply fails to satisfy what most FA-players want.

I quite enjoyed Supreme Commander 2 for what it was. The vanilla game was far better than SupCom 1 was at launch. The commander upgrades were fun. I pumped a couple of hundred hours into the multiplayer.

FA had more legs and I eventually went back to play that/watching replays. The community had a lot to do with that though. They've continued to tweak the game to the point where it's far better than it even was in 2008.

FA doesn't necessarily need a sequel. It's good as it is, bar the somewhat laggy engine. But as computers and internet connections have improved this becomes less of an issue every year. SupCom 2 was it's own entity with it's own audience and I came to appreciate it on its own terms. I think it was less that they tried to dumb things down but they tried to build upon the relatively successful style of Demigod and make a game with smaller maps and faster gameplay that you could play online without having to clear two hours in your schedule.

On Chris's opinion.

He hasn't given his opinion on Uber and like you said Nuetrino, I don't blame him. I would be surprised if he wasn't still confused about his own feelings considdering he doesn't talk about Uber or with Uber which to me is sad. His input should be highly valuable.

However, "That was the old Chris," sounds a lot like "OMG I wish I was doing this" to me. Feel free to add a lot more expletives if you want. He goes on to clarify that he isn't working for himself anymore (what Chris would want) but is now focusing on what his customers want (what new Chris wants).

I honestly have no idea how long it takes or how many people it takes to make an amazing product especially a single player campaign. But even with my limited knowledge, I feel like CT and GPG still doesn't understand where they hit the walls.

For example, by focusing on a single player action RPG Chris is aiming at competing with a TON of companies. Diablo clones are extensive and there are some great companies out there. I personally think Dragon Nest (a free to play game) is excellent fun with some very talented designers out of Korea. Torchlight, Phantasy Star Online, Bastion and others are also to be competed with. To me, competing in the action RPG pond is a lot harder, because having an IP that people care about is crucial. If he had John C Riley helping with this project it would be an immediate success guaranteed.

Chris's IPs are all generic/faceless and therefor less valuable. He has always needed a Sara Kerrigan and has never gotten one. He wants to make Dungeons and Dragons (awesome generic IP), but he forgets that he needs a Greyhawk to sell it.

(Mavor) PA is focusing on the dream (a game design for you and your friends to get together and play on the weekend - even/especially for friends who are savants gamer genius). PA is streamlined in multiple ways from graphics, to a single race (not sure why multiple races are so popular), to taking out the campaign. PA is avoiding all of the extensively expensive issues that a good action RPG is going to need (story, encounter balance, encounter AI, good feel and playability). Mavor is focusing on the strengths of what could be an explosively earth shaking product. PA if completed as intended and then spit shined to a level of super fun could be an Esport game to compete with Blizzard and Riot. I honestly don't think CT ever wanted that kind of responsibility. It's pretty insane when you have players consistently aiming kicks at your crotch because they want to win (in a certain way) and it requires the ability to talk to the community (Mavor and Sorian) and discuss the issues and then make the best improvements without direct repayment.

I am very glad Uber has the IP for PA, because its going to be up to Uber whether the product gets updates and for how long. Uber can decide what the charge will be and what's fair. There isn't any "we aren't allowed to fix the bug or balance issue because the publisher won't pay" for it business. That's death to an e-sport strategy game.

My opinion on Wildman: Wildman looks highly developed already, so it would be a shame to see it go away, but I am not backing something I wouldn't buy off the shelf. Considering monies generated so far tho, it might make 1.1 million. Would be nice to know GPG was solvent. Like Chris was implying about new Chris: customers put money into what they want.