Fall of Liberty Developer Says Game Reviewers Too Critical

Fall of Liberty Developer Says Game Reviewers Too Critical

image

Spark Unlimited CEO Craig Allen defended his company's Turning Point: Fall of Liberty FPS against mediocre review scores, saying "core gamers" were never its intended audience.

In an interview with VideoGamer.com, Allen suggested that game reviewers are inherently more critical than the game's intended mass market audience, leading to the lukewarm response and disappointing reviews. The game has been rated 5/10 by IGN and 3/10 by Game Informer.

"I think that when you try to do games that are about a mass market, and Turning Point is definitely a high concept idea, that with the time and money we had we did the best to execute on, our target was not really the core gamer," Allen said. "I think we're finding that the people who look at it like, 'Is this going to be fun, something I can drop into, a world I haven't seen before and have a good time?' really love the game."

"People ... are looking at it with more of a critical eye of, 'Is this game revolutionary, is it doing play mechanics I've never seen before, is it driving new technology?' It was never meant to do those things," he continued. "If people look at it in the right way, I think they really enjoy what they see. You can certainly look at it and say it's not revolutionary, so those opinions are certainly a lot more critical."

Turning Point: Fall of Liberty was released on February 26 in North America for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC. European and Australian releases of the game will take place later this month.

Permalink

I'm curious as to why it's so hard to find a copy of this game. There's not a single copy to be found in the Austin, TX area.

Why did it take so long for the first reviews to come out?

"Is this game revolutionary, is it doing play mechanics I've never seen before, is it driving new technology?' It was never meant to do those things," he continued."

Since when did IGN ever care about game revolutions? They gave Halo 3 & Twilight Princess a 9.5. Which are both good games, but hardly revolutionary. They score games based on what their readers will agree with, not how revolutionary it is.

"Spark Unlimited CEO Craig Allen defended his company's Turning Point: Fall of Liberty FPS against mediocre review scores, saying "core gamers" were never its intended audience."

In Other News:

"2K Games President Christoph Hartmann gloated about his company's RPG/FPS Bioshock following stellar review scores, saying "core gamers" were its intended audience." And then added, "Even though it was a rehash of a bunch of old games, at least it doesn't suck like Turning Point: Fall of Liberty."

And it is only six hours long.

So what he's saying basically is that it's a game like every other, except it lacks quality. I think the scores given fit rather nicely then : P

Now THIS I'd like to see in ZP ~~

Dectilon:
Now THIS I'd like to see in ZP ~~

Nah, it would be just too easy.

Most game reviewers are critical of anything that isn't a AAA title that's been hyped to hell and back and received marketing equivalent to a big summer blockbuster movie. Games that do fit those criteria typically recieve gushing, over-the-top praise without a hint of criticism in sight.

This game may well deserve these scores, but if Mr. Allen is just now realizing this about reviewers, he's about as dense a chunk of plutonium.

...

Has he been drinking liquid stupid or something?

"You all don't REALLY think your game was bad, do you."
"Yeah, yeah we d-"
"No, you don't, you're judging it to harshly"

Jiki:

Dectilon:
Now THIS I'd like to see in ZP ~~

Nah, it would be just too easy.

I'm thinking AVGN, the review being just a long string of curse words ^^

ingsoc:
And it is only six hours long.

LOL - this reminds me of the old joke:

"The food here is terrible."
"I know and the portions are so small!"

I love it when these developer types say their game is "revolutionary". Turning Point is a FPS based in what is basically a slightly altered version of WW2. Hardly revolutionary.

One of the first big mediocre games of this year. It's very disappointing that game companies release games with the intention of having a lower quality product meant for people who don't know better. Yes, we've become more critical as consumers, but you can't blame us for not wanting to play a horribly short, dated, and poorly designed games?

This guy is trying to justify his game being average by saying that its not intended for the core games market, but why should that excuse it? Why should more casual gamers be satisfied with a poor product? This is what always annoys me about 'kids' games, they assume that because its for the kiddies that they'll accept a poor product, its just an excuse for developer laziness and making a game on the cheap.

Even my cousins two little boys who are only 6 (twins in case anyone can't guess) can recognise when a game isn't all that good, they got a Sponge Bob game for their birthday and really didn't like it, so I hunted down Ookami for them, and they really like it, targeting kids and casuals is no excuse for sloppy products.

So basically it's a game you have to stand on your head sideays to properly enjoy says Spark Unlimited CEO?
Yeah, that sounds like the classic, "You just don't know how to enjoy art you phillistine" argument Clerks fanboys give.
yay, media comes full circle.

I ran this through a BS translator, and here's what popped out:

"I think that when you try to [exploit] the mass [of idiots] in the market, and Turning Point is definitely a [canned] idea, that with the [lack of creativity] we had we did the best to execute on, our target was not really [anything but revenue]," Allen said. "I think we're finding that the [suckers who buy our crap] who look at it like, 'Is this going to be fun, something I can drop into, a world I haven't seen before and have a good time?' really [hate] the game."

"[Critics] ... are looking at it with more of a critical eye of, 'Is this game [good at all], is it doing play mechanics [that are standard in this overdone genre], is it [utilizing] new[er] technology?' It was never meant to do those things," he continued. "If people look at it in the [way I want them to], I think they really enjoy what [I tell them they enjoyed]. You can certainly look at it and say it's not [good], so those opinions are certainly a lot more critical [than I had hoped]."

Craig Allen:
"I think we're finding that the people who look at it like, 'Is this going to be fun, something I can drop into, a world I haven't seen before and have a good time?' really love the game."

Really? because that's exactly how I went into the demo, and it was awful. Scripted events were Broken, the graphics were horrible , the controls were so clunky I could barely aim, and the AI was... well, let's just say inadequate.

Craig Allen:
"People ... are looking at it with more of a critical eye of, 'Is this game revolutionary, is it doing play mechanics I've never seen before, is it driving new technology?' It was never meant to do those things,"

OK, fair enough. But I had a great time playing "Black" on xbox arcade the other day, and it's a little over 2 years old. It controls well, is satisfying to play, and the explosions make me giggle. "Turning Point" can claim none of these things, despite being a brand new, high budget title with an interesting premise and access to a lot more processing technology than the designers of black could ever have dreamed of.

So why does it look worse, play worse, and earn you a spot in the "Biggest gaming douchebags of all time" pantheon? Because it's awful. It's badly made, badly tested, badly designed, and badly marketed. It is the "Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing" of the FPS world, and you should be fucking ashamed you ever let it publish as it is.

he continued. "If people look at it in the right way,

(on my friend's TV, so I can point and laugh)

I think they really enjoy what they see. You can certainly look at it and say it's not revolutionary, so those opinions are certainly a lot more critical."

Look, here's the problem with that, Craig-o.

Every Zelda game since "Ocarina of time" has been really, really derivative of the previous Zelda game. yet these games receive critical acclaim and obtain commercial success

Halo 3 is Halo 1 with better graphics and a shittier plot. Second only to COD:4 in sales last year.

Ok, those are franchises... they have a head start. Sorry.

"Golden Axe" played on xbox live arcade is still fun and rewarding to play. It stopped being revolutionary nearly 20 years ago.

"Timeshift" was exactly what you state your game is. It released using an established engine and a gimmick mechanic that was as old as "Prince of Persia". IGN gave that game a 7.6, and Game Informer gave it a 7.75. Middling good scores for a middling good game.

Now go play some games, issue an apology, and get patching. you've got a lot of work to do before you make that coaster worth the $60 you so fancifully charged for it.

A question to the group: I played the demo, but I have not played the game. Is the game basically the same, or did they fix things?

EDIT: Removed question about something else which was corrected.

Geoffrey42:

strayjay:

OK, fair enough. But I had a great time playing "Black" on xbox arcade the other day, and it's nearly 5 years old. It controls well, is satisfying to play, and the explosions make me giggle. "Turning Point" can claim none of these things, despite being a brand new, high budget title with an interesting premise and access to a lot more processing technology than the designers of black could ever have dreamed of.

I did a significant double take on the "5 years old" bit. I thought "Am I losing it that badly? How old AM I?"

Then I looked it up, and was re-assured, since Black was released in Feb '06. I'm not defending Falling Point, by any means, but 2 years isn't nearly as big a difference as 5.

A question to the group: I played the demo, but I have not played the game. Is the game basically the same, or did they fix things?

Better than the demo. To be honest, it's not AS BAD as a lot of people are making it out to be (myself included). It's pretty shallow, and pretty cookie cutter, but IMO, if you thought the demo was playable, I'd spend the $5 to rent it.

Hell, if I really disliked buggy games, I'd never have played through Daggerfall and loved it. Of course, TP is no Daggerfall.

But, take my word for it, TP is a very good abbreviation for this game...

Geoffrey42:

Then I looked it up, and was re-assured, since Black was released in Feb '06. I'm not defending Falling Point, by any means, but 2 years isn't nearly as big a difference as 5.

Whoops... changed.

mitsoxfan:

Better than the demo. To be honest, it's not AS BAD as a lot of people are making it out to be (myself included). It's pretty shallow, and pretty cookie cutter, but IMO, if you thought the demo was playable, I'd spend the $5 to rent it.

I wouldn't even call the demo close to playable. I was just trying to figure out if everyone was bashing it solely based on demo-experience (which is never entirely fair), or if my experience with the demo was comparable, in which case all of the bad press it's getting is entirely deserved.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here