Every two years now for the past 6 years we've done the GUI Championships (formerly GUI Olympics but the US Olympic Committee sent the lawyers after us).

We've tried different types of judging over the years and had different rules.  But one of the bummers has been that Stardock people can't participate since, well, we run the thing so obviously you can't have Stardock people participating.

So this time, we are asking you - users, skinners, and everyone else, under what circumstances, if any, could we let people like Mike Bryant (MikeB), Paul Boyer (Mormegil), and other Stardock artists particpiate?  I think the contest overall would be better served if they could be in it but we would need to not have Stardock involved in the judging then.

Imagine how much better the contest would be with icons from Paul Boyer? Or skins from Mike Bryant? Not to mention other stuff from other Stardock artists.  But we want to do things the way you want them so let us know.

It's not just that I get to make really cool stuff for a living. I mean, I get paid to make computer games for crying out loud.

But that's not what makes my job so fun. It's the people. I work with some amazing people. They're not just talented, they're good people.  If I were to describe what a typical day at our office was like, you just wouldn't believe that an office environment with 30 or so people in the main office (everyone else is external) is largely free from "company politics". It's more like a sitcom in which everyone is pretty funny.

If you ever listen to PowerUser.TV you can almost picture what it's like at work. Though admittedly we do ask questions on Monty Python and The Simpsons during interviews which might have something to do with the general oddness of people here... 

But it's not just that they're nice and talented people, they're people who practically manage themselves. They're just amazing.  Cari and her crew (sexist hat on for a second, how many PC games have female lead developers?) can do an amazing level of stuff in a single day. 

Today, Jesse and Paul got in the rotating hardpoints. That means you can select your ship jewelry thingy and rotate it while it's connected to the ship and resize it.  They also started getting in the randomized players, random intelligence, no tech trading option, and other goodies.

And mind you, they also had to finish up the demo today so that QA could start messing with it in order to get it out to the public by the end of the month.  Speaking of which, they got that demo down to under 170 megs. This on a game that's like 1.4 gigs.  Obviously a lot of multimedia and music are lost but in terms of gameplay it's still pretty solid.

I will be going on a vacation in May. Just before E3. Taking a week off to go to Texas.  Though maybe I should take my laptop with me...just in case...

It's been a week of new reviews from around the net.

Killer Betties has taken a look at Galactic Civilizations II.   It concludes with:

With numerous races to play and many different ships to design and play with, this really is a sci-fi fan's dream of a space empire builder. There is sure to be many mods based on popular shows and movies for it, as it would lend itself well to this. The game is fun and relatively fast moving, so it's worth going out and getting.

You can read the whole thing here.
 

We found another review tonight that had been posted a couple days ago called GamerFeed.  Their review writes:

This empire-building strategy encompasses everything that makes the genre great. If you are looking for a game that falls in the same vein as the Civilization and Master of Orion series, and absolutely bursting with content, this is the game to get. Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords is great technologically and also in gameplay.

GamerFeed's review can be fond here.

UK site Ace Gamez put up their review this week as well. Their rating system has a fairly unique category called "Lifespan".   After spending some time on their site, I came to really appreciate that particular metric.

Their review concludes with:

I know what it takes for a game to be addictive, and GCII has it. It will take up so much time, yet you'll find yourself yearning for more. While you're out, you'll be thinking about how to take a certain planet without leaving yourself exposed, or who to make an alliance with next. Truly a must buy for role-play and strategy fans everywhere.

You can read their review here.

I have to say, seeing these reviews is just, well, so cool.  

When you visit a site like this, you see a game developer's site. I.e. this is the website of a strategy game and you may already have the game, or you may be thinking of getting it.

But for us, we leave, eat, sleep this stuff. So we're so excited to hear what people think. The good and the bad (though obviously we prefer the good). 

For other developers out there, for anyone who think you have to have 50 guys to make a modern PC game, don't despair. Just pick something you really like to make. Something you want to play and make it. 

More to come!

In the 15 years or so I've been making games I've found that there are three types of reviewers.   That's a gross over simplification of course but I'm a grossly oversimplified kind of guy.

Drive-Byers

The first type of reviewer is the drive-by reviewer.  If you're an indie developer, you are more apt to run into this. That's the review that makes you feel like, as you read it, that they were miffed having to take a time out from their first person shooter to play some little indie title's turn based strategy game.  We don't get these as much as we used to but we still get them. 

These guys scare me because I honestly don't feel like we get a really fair shot.  And I'm not saying they give only negative reviews. And that's the worst part. Because if you complain about the review when it was a positive rating you will get "What? We gave you an positive rating?" You can almost hear the "You make a great little shareware type game, I'm sure really hard core nerds get a thrill out of your little game."

But the drive by review can be negative too. If they run into any problem, don't expect a follow-up. These guys also live to put in snarky comments in their reviews -- nothing makes ya look cooler than to practice your written venom at the expense of some hapless developer.

But don't take my word for this. Go over to www.Gamerankings.com some time, think of the best indie games of all time, look at the reviews. Then go and think of some big budget drek that's come out and look at who gave them 90s or higher equivalents.

Casual Reviewers

The second type is the "Eh It looks like it has good production values, seems solid, haven't heard of it, looks good but won't give it better than 4.5/5 because if it was truly outstanding, they wouldn't be a small company." I've said this long before our latest game has come out as I followed the reviews of some truly outstanding and innovative games from small developers get an 80% on the same day they'll put up a 96 for some of the worst shovelware from some mega publisher.

The second type though isn't a drive-by review in that it's obvious they played the game decently. Moreover, these reviews are probably closest to what the overall average will be from both reader reviews and all sites combined. Rather, it's more like there's just a cap.  I don't really have an issue with these types of reviews because let's face it, it takes a long time to really review a game and we are a smaller developer. As long as we're not patronized I'm a happy camper.

The text to these reads like this "Great great great great great great." with a 4/5 rating.

I don't get worried as much about the second-type. I know we won't get super high reviews but I know we won't get really low reviews either as long as we've put together a solid title.

The Ultras

But it's the third type that scares me the most. The third type is the hard core reviewer. The person who is going to take your game apart. The ULTRA reviewer.

Ultra reviewers dissect a game to make sure it does what it's supposed to do. They know the genre, they know who plays them.  It's not enough to make a polished, solid game. Because they know that many gamers could care less about that. To them, the question is, is the game FUN?

These ultra  reviewers scare everyone equally though. Whether you're Microsoft or Stardock, they'll crush you like a bug equally. They're freelancers. Publishers have no power over them. Go ahead, threaten to take your ad dollars away. They'll laugh at you.

They may write for big sites or they may write for small sites. It doesn't matter. Their words carry weight because of years of built up integrity. If they give a big name game a 2 star rating, people take notice. And when they give out 5 star ratings it's equally a big deal.  It's not that they give a lot of negative scores, it's that they're immune to hype.

Ultras in action

QuarterToThree had a good article that dealt with this.  It links to one of Bruce Shelley's (designer of Age of Empires III) blogs.

Bruce wrote:

I am struck by the fact that the two biggest PC gaming magazines in the US gave Age 3 such disparate scores. Computer Gaming World gave it 60% (three stars out of five), while PC Gamer gave it 91%. That seems like it would be very confusing to readers who are considering whether to try the game. Players will establish eventually if the relative score of the game was at one of these extremes or the other, or somewhere in between. Data we’re seeing says that Age 3 has been perhaps the best selling PC game in the world since release in mid-October and that certainly suggests that the 60% score miss-represents the true achievement of the game.

No, what happened is that the CGW review was done by an Ultra and the PC Gamer one was not.  I'm not suggesting Age 3 "deserved" any particular score. That's not for me to say, I'm not a reviewer. Just that I, and others who follow this stuff know who the reviewers are and their reputations.

I'm also sure Bruce knows that game sales are not the sole indicator of a game's quality. As a game designer one is almost tempted to put together a crude formula for what determines sales: DISTRIBUTION X MARKETING X GAME QUALITY X DEMOGRAPHIC SIZE.

If my game were massively distributed, I wouldn't use sales as the thrust of my argument. Deer Hunter made the case that we shouldn't rely too much on sales as the sole determiner.

What he's pointing out is that the CGW review of Age of Empires III was not to his liking. The review (and CGM one) points out why they thought what they thought.

If he thinks that's rough, he should walk in our shoes where we could get the same rating for the sin of not being well known. After all, if we had a great game, wouldn't everyone already be hyped about it? That's the real reason games come with fancy opening cut scenes in case you've wondered. They help provide a clue as to a game's production values which is jokingly called "Driveby-begone" in some developer circles.

Ultras and Indies

Ironically, if you're an indie developer, these mega reviewers are your only chance of getting really high scores. And they don't give them out often as Ensemble observed. So talk about being in the shark tank.  In fact, they're far far more likely to give out negative reviews than any other type.

Let me be clear lest I give the impression that the mark of an Ultra review is someone who craps on a game. No. What I'm saying is that an Ultra reviewer is simply someone who knows the target audience -- that they are the target audience. And they don't care who you are. They care only about the game.

And anyone reading their review -- including the developers -- will observe and despair at the powerful evidence that justifies their opinion.  If your game is good, you'll get a great review and score. But if it's bad, it doesn't matter whether you're EA or Sony or whoever you're dead meat.

When Ultras follow up with developers, they can make the developer realize that they're the worst game designer in the world and that they should have stuck with Electrical Engineering and stayed the hell out of the whole "game thing". And that's even if it ends up a positive review.

Because no game is perfect. The question is purely how flawed the game is and how flawed is it compared to other games in its genre. But as a developer, the case Ultras can make is devastating. Design decisions you thought were sound can suddenly be called into question as they put forth rock solid arguments. Bugs you never heard of are suddenly obvious and easily reproducible.

Not all Ultras follow up. But Ultras tend to be the most thorough and careful. If they run into an issue or have a question, they're the most likely to contact the developers and get clarification.

GalCiv II reviews

Ultras put the fear into me I can tell you that. I'll admit, on GalCiv II, more so than our other games or products in the past, I've followed the posted reviews as well as I can. That's because this game is close to the best I can do.

I can see tons of tweaks here and there but realistically, unlike our other games, I don't look back and wish we could have done a lot of things differently. When we finished GalCiv 1, I wasn't overjoyed. I felt confined by the budget and resources and the MOO3 fans had convinced us we were about to get crushed. And I agreed with them. But not so with GalCiv II. Everything came together. 

So I'm particularly sensitive to the reviews.  Not so much because I expect a certain score as much as I'm worried deep down that I'll finally have proof that I am not the game designer I'd wanted to be. Reviews so far have been positive. There's been a sampling of all three kinds of reviews. And of course, few reviewers neatly fit into a particular category. Like I said, we're talking a gross oversimplification, sort of like ratings themselves.

I've dealt with the ultra reviewers and they're like the Babylon5 Inquisitor episode. They'll send in questions, point things out and by the time they're done, you not only suspect but know that your game is the worst game ever and that you wasted a lot of people's time having the audacity of releasing such junk. I tend to be fully prepared to agree with criticism. It's in my nature.

One of the ultra reviewers, Jeff Lackey (Gamespot), really liked the game. It was a huge relief. Admittedly, I was terrified before it came out. Like I said, these guys find flaws and design decisions that you might have previously thought were good ideas. But when they're done with you, you start tidying up your resume -- just in case of course...

Ultra reviewers finding flaws doesn't mean your game is doomed to a negative review. But when confronted with a design decision or a bug, it's hard not to start having second thoughts on what you've created. They follow-up. They ask questions. They point things out. And when you're done, you're jelly.  

Not all follow-up of course. Sometimes you'll just end up reading a review in which you can tell they understood what we were going for -- for good or bad.  The Ultras are the reasons some indie games get a peppering of very high scores (see Darwinia) and why some big named games get a peppering of not so high scores.

I'm aware of a couple of reviews that involve Ultras that are in progress. They aren't likely to see this post and even if they did, it would matter nothing. I could say "Reviewer X, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!" and it would have no effect.  The reviews may be very positive or very negative. They may cover minor game flaws or, depending on how many words they're allowed, may choose to focus on the key elements good and bad. It's hard to say. 

I plan to link to all reviews that at least seem like they gave us a fair shot. A fair review is all anyone can really ask for.

updated: Edited, cleaned up grammar, terminology.

Okay, don't freak out...But one of our developers figured out how to make it so that you can rotate and resize your ship parts once they're already on the ship. Yes, FREE FORM rotation. None of that crappy "rotate 90 degree" crap anymore.  And here's the thing, you can create some really whacky stuff with it. 

We're going to have to put out a beta or something because some of this new stuff is too cool to wait until the end of the month.  So for our own sanity, we hope to have some of this stuff up as early as next week in beta form on Stardock Central. 

Oh, and I've been reading the forum. Some people dissing my AI.  You're asking for it.  On intelligent level the AI is going to have its vengeance. Because I've been playing the game too and coming up with new things. So those of you who think you've got things under control are in for it.

But don't worry, for other users, I'm working on new AI routines that cause the AI to do dumb things at lower levels. 

So if you think we do these updates for you guys -- our customers, you're mistaken. Oh no, these updates are purely about revenge. Someone has to stand up for the rights of artificial intelligence powered players everywhere. Someone must stand up and say "NO MORE." No more human tyranny over these poor, gentle artificial creatures. 

As mentioned previously, the new servers have arrived and the coding team has been working around the clock to optimize code and make tweaks.

JU is back! Hopefully you can already tell a performance increase.

If it seems like things have slown down in the past few months, it's because it has. But not in terms of development  What's been slowed down is our ability to actually release/deliver things.

We've got updates to WindowBlinds, WindowFX, IconPackager, WinCustomize Browser, DesktopX, SoundPackager, LogonStudio, SkinStudio, a couple new premium suites, new fish, new gadgets, ThinkDesk components, ObjectBar, Control Center, Multiplicity, KeepSafe, and a bunch of other stuff. 

So what's the deal?  That stupid game, Galactic Civilizations II, has eaten up so much of Stardock's internal support/marketing/IT resources that, well you get the picture.  The good news is that the game's doing very well and we're on a hiring spree so that this kind of thing won't happen in the future. 

The other good news is that in the coming weeks, you're going to have a downpour of new goodies to play with! Stay tuned.  In the meantime, check out the galleries, some great new stuff from Essorant, ChaNinja and others!

Our goal is to fully build up WinCustomize.com into its own independent "business unit" by the time Windows Vista ships and to have marketing/support/IT resources that are more than capable of dealing with both a popular game and all the other cool stuff.  We're hiring in all areas right now. Tech support, marketing, sales, developers, artists, you name it.  If you are interested in working in sunny Plymouth Michigan, drop your resume to [email protected].

So I want to issue a hearfelt apology that things have been kind of slow in delivering this stuff.  We're working on it.

Our achilles heel.  Stardock's server farm has a lot of redundancy. But it has a bottle neck that until the last few months wasn't really a bottleneck.

It's a server called Marvin.  Marvin is our Stardock.net account server.  It traditionally hasn't been that busy, but as more and more sites start using it, it's gotten bad. Very bad.

The long term solution is to cluster it and use replication to mirror accounts onto other machines to load balance. But that's going to take time.

The short term solution is to get a mongo server in there to do the work. And that mongo server has arrived. It's got 6 hard drives in it to do both RAID 0 and RAID 1.  It's got SMP Duo Core 64-bit processors.  It's got (I think) 10 Gigabytes of RAM in it.

Once we have that up, the sites will be faster and definitely more reliable. Then we can work on the long term solution which is via replication and mirroring.

Update: The relief has arrived! No more unscheduled down time anticipated.