Turning Point is too 'high concept' for reviewers, says CEO
by Scott Jon Siegel 
{ Mar 7th 2008 at 12:00PM }
Responding to recent unfavorable reviews of Turning Point, Allen stated that the game was never meant for "core gamers," and that those looking at the title with a critical eye are not the intended audience. According to him, the alternate-universe World War II FPS is a "high concept idea," enjoyable by those who just want to have fun, and aren't looking for innovation or technical breakthroughs.
Despite his defense of the title, Allen states the team's next game, Legendary, will address many of the problems gamers and critics had with Turning Point, but it won't necessarily be a "better" game. Because Turning Point wasn't actually "bad." Apparently.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Maverick Saturn @ Mar 7th 2008 12:08PM
Nope, we hate innovation :) Heck, give me Mario on Nes and keep re-releasing it ;) I'll buy it every time.
JonFitt @ Mar 7th 2008 12:25PM
RE4 anyone? FF?
Maverick Saturn @ Mar 7th 2008 12:34PM
Difference is they change, the genre is kept the same, but the games play differently, and storylines are different, so, yes, they both have levels of innovation, just its only apparent to RPG/shooter fans, people who don't play these games or don't much like them won't notice the difference.
Ten Dolla Bill @ Mar 7th 2008 1:17PM
The demo was terrible, it has nothing to do with the concept of the game. The graphics were horrible, the AI was laughable and it just felt bad.
Lars @ Mar 7th 2008 4:53PM
Your point is fundamentally flawed. Compared with the flood of games hitting the market, the actual number of titles that innovate is extremely low. Occassionally someone comes up with a new idea, then a bajillion other games copy it. The most popular games are labeled the "innovators" even though they may have nothing new, just rehashed things from their own or other's games (see Halo 3).
But I will agree that if the game sucks then the point is moot anyways, innovation or no.
Fatass of Kickassness @ Mar 7th 2008 12:09PM
This kind of thing needs a name.
How about 'the Lair effect'?
aaron_k7 @ Mar 7th 2008 12:30PM
You have my vote. I think creators of mediocre games should release the "Guide to Reviewing ______" right from the start. I mean, gamers and game reviewers are really not smart enough to decide when something is a good game, fun to play, well-designed, etc.
There's also a "What did you really expect?" factor to this story. Trying to compete with other FPS games like COD4 or Crysis is just a bad idea. Even an above average FPS (which "Turning Point" is not that) is going to get destroyed in that case, let alone a mediocre one.
JonFitt @ Mar 7th 2008 12:10PM
I can *kind of* see his point. He wants the game to be reviewed for what it is, not what it isn't.
On the other hand, you don't get to choose how your product is reviewed!
I quite like the idea of a shooter with a cool concept which isn't trying to push any boundaries. Legendary looks good for that same reason.
tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 7th 2008 2:34PM
"He wants the game to be reviewed for what it is, not what it isn't"
well what it isn't is good, i got that much just from the demo.
Ranus Studios @ Mar 7th 2008 12:10PM
But it wasn't fun.
At all.
aaron_k7 @ Mar 7th 2008 12:32PM
I don't think you understand what "fun" is, or even what it means to have said "fun."
riggs @ Mar 7th 2008 1:06PM
well fun means to play a game other than this.
ogvor @ Mar 7th 2008 12:15PM
Wouldn't "High Concept" imply that it's meant for the most hardcore "video games as art" type crowd? At least thats what I thought High conpcept movies and music was meant to be.
Lars @ Mar 7th 2008 4:47PM
"High Concept" just means they had a really good idea/story, but not the means (read: money) to make a AAA title out of it.
Fernando Rocker @ Mar 7th 2008 12:15PM
They need to ask Factor 5 and Sony how to create a Reviewers Guide.
Shagittarius @ Mar 7th 2008 12:17PM
r maybe he was expecting it to be reviewed the way they review Wii games...take the score you give it then add another 10% cause its made by Nintendo.
Marry me Mario PSN: Killjebus @ Mar 7th 2008 12:27PM
Damn TG that was funny. Good one, no really (no sarcasm).
Shaggy, I believe it is closer to 20%
bm @ Mar 7th 2008 4:29PM
Haha no you guys, its more like 30% lol!
Lars @ Mar 7th 2008 4:59PM
You mean M$/Bungee. If I remember right, they're the ones who gave out the $800 'reviewer packages'. Surprised they didn't just give out BJ's to reviewers, but they already hit 10's for the most part anyways... well, here's to hoping ;)
matthew @ Mar 7th 2008 12:19PM
When I first saw Turning Point it was in the pages of Game Informer. It just had a concept picture of Nazis marching on the lawn of the white house with the swastika everywhere. I was excited! Nazi invasion of America? How could you go wrong?!?!
Well I found out when I downloaded that demo. My goodness this thing looks like it should be on LAST gen systems. No blood, weird AI.
I was very disappointed and I was looking forward to the damn game!
James Lockwood @ Mar 7th 2008 12:19PM
"Turning Point is too 'high concept' for reviewers, says CEO"
Nope, it's just shit. I had more fun playing Generic Nazi Shooter 5 than this.
Maverick Saturn @ Mar 7th 2008 12:21PM
That game exists? Where can I buy?
James Lockwood @ Mar 7th 2008 12:21PM
I know where you CAN'T buy it, and that's Germany. Censor-Nazis!
Maverick Saturn @ Mar 7th 2008 12:23PM
Lmao, expansion pack
Now you can shoot Arabs and Aliens :)
Avarice @ Mar 7th 2008 12:40PM
Man, that series went downhill after #3.
tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 7th 2008 2:36PM
you can buy it later this year when shit-arch (read: Treyarch) releases call of duty 5
AoE @ Mar 7th 2008 6:45PM
oooh! I saw what you did there tmacairjordan87... very.. what's the word? not clever... what's the polar opposite of clever?
Neon Jebus @ Mar 7th 2008 12:22PM
When your game has crap controls it becomes a chore not a game. And that's going to get you a negative review.
I came away from the demo thinking that the controls sucked, and the game was very, very boring.
Maverick Saturn @ Mar 7th 2008 12:23PM
How can you have fun when the controls suck, innovation may not be needed, but controls are vital!
Marry me Mario PSN: Killjebus @ Mar 7th 2008 12:24PM
Why is it that videogame reviewers carry so much weight? If a movie gets a bad review no big deal. But if a game gets bad reviews..it's taken as an insult.
Strange
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Mar 7th 2008 12:28PM
Because a badly reviewed movie, or a shit movie in general, will still make a ton of money. Wayan Brothers know this all too well.
Marry me Mario PSN: Killjebus @ Mar 7th 2008 12:33PM
What happened to them? In Living Color was soo funny. They just went to shit in record time.
colinbell @ Mar 7th 2008 12:26PM
Havent played this game - but he does have a point, sometimes reviewers are too blinkered. Lair and Lost Odyssey are cases in point, in entirely differnt ways - Lair was a grand exercise in trying something new, and I personally had a blast playing it, loved the motion controls and graphics, and the great story / music but somehow no "critic" got the sheer joy of steering with the motion controls. And if you check out reviews on Amazon, lots of people did enjoy the game.
The other way round with Lost Odyssey - to me, even though I hate JRPGs, THE game on the 360 (far more than Halo 3) - just reading reviews, simply the opposite of Lair, because did nothing new but just took old JRPG mechanics, and simply made the perfect JRPG, with all its flaws, but also great graphics and a great story. Apparently the (not too large) number of people who bought this game found it pretty good, but no joy from the reviewers (average metacritic score lower than PDZ, I think)
Geist @ Mar 7th 2008 1:09PM
Lair was an experiment that failed, that's the problem. The motion controls were terrible, with no option to change them. You can't have sheer joy using them if they feel clunky and poor. Also the game may have looked pretty but the mechanics were terrible, like how if you hit a wall, you'd merely 'slide' off of it. That is poo.
As for Lost Odyssey, I don't know. Maybe they were expecting something different? I'm guessing the guys who normally review 360 games weren't expecting a JRPG.
Trev @ Mar 7th 2008 1:57PM
The controls for Lair were actually ok. Too responsive, if anything. If you pulled the controller back before snapping it forward to do the dash, for example, you might do the 180. That's because you pulled it back though, which is how you do the 180. They should have left a little more leeway to enter commands. If someone was waving their arms around like a jackass they ACTUALLY WERE playing the game wrong. You can play it without moving your arms at all.
The problems Lair really does have, however, are pretty fucking terrible. Vague mission objectives, bad camera, sudden cutscenes that throw off the game entirely. You know, all the things that were in Rogue Squadron for gamecube, because that's what it was. You even had a targeting computer facsimile. They just took out the x-wings and put in dragons.
Of course, if you mix a game like that with motion controls in the height of the "wave your arms like an idiot for WiiSports and wreck your tv" craze and you DO get something that's damn near unplayable.
I totally support giving Lair shit, but I want to make sure it gets shit for the right reasons. Great graphics and sound, a big pile of lame game elements that would indicate the testers were drunk off their asses, and acceptable-yet-poorly-described controls.
Trev @ Mar 7th 2008 2:12PM
tl;dr version:
Lair didn't suck because of the controls, it sucked because it was actually a bad game. They recycled a six year old Gamecube launch title and pretended it was the second coming.
Lars @ Mar 7th 2008 5:06PM
Trev, you just sold me on Lair.
I never played Rogue Squadron, but people raved about it. I much prefer dragons and medieval fantasy to futuristic stuff. So, now I'll get to play a game that was great, but in a setting I like more and with nice current-gen graphics.
Ah, I see Lair is on sale for $29 bucks now too. Sold!
Trev @ Mar 8th 2008 3:00AM
Great, Lars. I really want you to be lying. I can't tell because its just text, but I really do
The problem is Rogue Squadron 2 wasn't that great. You couldn't tell the gray specs of x-wings from the gray specs of TIEs at a long distance, it had the same sudden cutscenes, the same vague objectives that you needed to use the targeting computer for, the same invisible turn-around "walls". Exactly what's in Lair, except you had pew-pew blasters instead of pew-pew fireballs.
A guy I work with ended up liking Lair for the dragons and setting, but eh. I'm not trying to recommend it to anyone.
Jesus, man. Paying money for and playing Lair; there is shit you just don't joke about.
james @ Mar 7th 2008 12:42PM
This is bull. If this game has a different target audience then don't bother commenting. Gamers that buy crap like this don't usually read reviews, blogs, etc.
NATO_Duke @ Mar 7th 2008 12:39PM
"Listen people, our game is crap and you just don't seem to get that crap is fun. Craptastic - heard that term? Yeah crap and fantastic put together - thats our game. Oh, obviously the concept is beyond you all!"
:P
iiijeremy @ Mar 7th 2008 12:41PM
I downloaded the demo on the 360 and actually felt guilty about completing it, as it was so bad that it didn't deserve to be completed. Perhaps the full version has a lot more to offer, which would hopefully include controls that are less clunky and AI that reacts with something resembling half a brain, but the demo itself was nothing to get excited about. Verily, I can only imagine that the demo served to turn gamers off to the game, as opposed to getting anyone excited about buying it. Nevertheless, I'd hate for the CEO's indignant retort to be slowed by some simple gamers and critics with opinions. LOL.
Deck @ Mar 7th 2008 12:54PM
So I am still a little confused, what exactly is this "High Concept" actually referring to?
Or maybe thats it, no one knows. Thus the crap of this game. (I haven't played it, keep in mind)
J @ Mar 7th 2008 2:13PM
I'm pretty sure that "High concept" simply means that they were high when they came up with the concept.
Lars @ Mar 7th 2008 5:10PM
ROFL! That was awesome, J!
Deck @ Mar 7th 2008 8:07PM
Ahhh well then, maybe that would better help explain the game.
Thanks! :-p
Yishai08 @ Mar 7th 2008 10:18PM
he's actually going to use casual gaming as the scapegoat here? It's bad enough that many casual games don't need to be held to a standard of quality but blatantly hardcore titles too?
CaptNink @ Mar 7th 2008 1:21PM
It's bullshit.
Bioshock is considered a 'high concept' game, but the critics and fans loved it. Why? Because it's a good game! That can't be said about 'Liberty'—concept or not.
SugarDaddy @ Mar 7th 2008 1:42PM
Good call. Bioshock did innovate though.
spmbx @ Mar 7th 2008 2:35PM
Maybe pre-release, but post release Bioshock was a drama. Lots of technical problems (Gamespot even noted it in their review), people getting screwed with their lame Securom activation bullshit, and piss poor support. Their forums were a disaster too.
The only thing remotely nice about Bioshock is its art style. The game itself is as generic as can be. Shooting 3 or 4 infinitely respawning character models in corridors, please...
Lars @ Mar 7th 2008 5:15PM
"Bioshock did innovate though."
In what way?
Serious question... I personally didn't see any innovation at all, but never finished it either. Maybe I should if it's gonna throw an innovation curveball at me.