Realtime's Dave Jones defends APB

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 2 July, 2010

Full Eurogamer interview on Monday.

Realtime Worlds' Dave Jones has responded to criticism of APB in a wide-ranging interview due to be published on Eurogamer next week.

Jones blamed disappointing review scores on "misconceptions" and "huge expectations".

Eurogamer gave the game a 6/10 this morning, criticising the combat, matchmaking, and vehicle handling, but praising it for "the vast amount of intelligent thought and clever design that has gone into the structure of the game".

"It's not for absolutely everybody," Jones admitted. "If some people are diehard FPS guys and Modern Warfare is their life, they're going to struggle to make the change.

"But Splinter Cell players, or guys who are in to more tactical combat and they just love being online with their friends in a multi-player game, we're finding we're really resonating with those guys. There are a lot of misconceptions.

"Funnily enough I'm just reading the Eurogamer one just now, and there are misconceptions about more powerful characters and more powerful guns.

"There are no more powerful characters and there are no more powerful guns in the game. But people die and they see a rating on a player. Rating has nothing to do with the kind of equipment they have. Our weapon system is exactly the same as Modern Warfare. We don't have more powerful weapons. We just have a different range of weapons."

Jones said APB suffers in comparison to Grand Theft Auto, a series he helped create while at DMA Design (later Rockstar North).

"Some people had too high expectations. The game years ago was initially tagged as GTA MMO, which we'd never said. Obviously people put two and two together - our history and the fact it was online - and said, 'Oh it's going to be like a GTA MMO'. I think that's set huge expectations. That's not what we were building, so I was expecting that."

Despite the less than stellar reaction to APB thus far, Jones remains upbeat.

"I remember on GTA 1, people laughed at it because it was a 2D game when Ridge Racer appeared. They laughed at the screenshots. They said, 'These guys are crazy releasing a 2D top down game'. But once they played the game a fair bit they go, 'Well actually it's kind of good fun'. And they saw past that. Crackdown was the same. Every game - I think it's a bit of a curse of mine. We just try and make sure we do something different every time."

Expect more from our interview with Dave Jones when it goes live next week.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (53) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ronuds #1 2 years ago

    Oh, it's OUR fault for having high expectations then.

    Sorry - won't happen again! :p

  • Sunyavadin #2 2 years ago

    He'd have stood a better chance defending Josef Fritzl...

  • tnomad #3 2 years ago

    I think his point is people are going into it expecting a game they'll like and that's not what they're getting. They need to get used to it and settle for what RTW has made instead. Seems fair, all games that get criticism should claim the same. If you stop expecting it be anything like good games, you can probably just accept this is all there is.

  • J0rdan_KZ #4 2 years ago

    Games can be janky and still be great fun. But a janky game with an even more janky pricing structure is a little harder to swallow for the average consumer I'm afraid.

  • lucifonz #5 2 years ago

    "disappointing review scores"? As far as I can tell Eurogamer is the only review, nice negative spin there Eurogamer, smart - or not.

  • neilka #6 2 years ago

    We're just not hardstyle enough :(

  • tnomad #7 2 years ago

    Actually I think anytime a game on EG recieves less than the a Bramwell 7 out of 10 the developer should get a chance to say "NO, IT'S GOOD! HONEST! I SPENT YEARS ON IT SO IT MUST BE GOOD! YOU'RE PLAYING IT WRONG! I HATE YOU AND YOU'RE MEAN!"

  • Sir_TimAlot #8 2 years ago

    Its like Haze all over again....

  • Alivada #9 2 years ago

    I bought the game and I agree with Eurogamer on this.
    There ARE powerful guns (I would like like to see Jones play against someone who takes less damage and who's gun has less recoil with extra power while he uses the stright of the bat stuff).
    The combat is crappy with the damage the same no matter where you hit someone and the missions usually put you against a group of high level friends.

    It's also not an MMO, when did 100 people in a rather small city (smaller than a single island of GTA) become a massively multiplayer online game?

    PCgamer gave it a 55%.

    Basically buy RDR, it has less people and little customization but it is actually fun a feature Realtime Worlds forgot to add in APB.
    Edited by 3 at 02/07/10 @ 17:17

  • LR100 #10 2 years ago


    If people had misconceptions and the wrong expectations, then you need better PR people.
    Edited by 2 at 02/07/10 @ 17:11

  • brseg #11 2 years ago

    APB had an extended beta, didnt it? I'd like to know the results of that, and if those players had issues, what was addressed, were they listened to etc.

    Edit: If you read (admittedly early) press releases and interviews they describe it as GTA+MMO themselves. Links on wikipedia.
    Edited by 1 at 02/07/10 @ 17:16

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #12 2 years ago

    More like Davey Jones' butthurt locker, innit.

  • darkmorgado #13 2 years ago

    @lucifonz

    No. PC Gamer have also reviewed it. They gave it 55%

  • darkmorgado #14 2 years ago

    It's all well and good complaining that people had misconceptions about the game, but the problems in the review that were highlighted went far beyond the concept - repetitive missions, poor controls and vehicle handling and the play area being too small. When the game itself is flawed in so many fundamental areas, of course it isn't going to score highly. I would like to see them explain away the complaints about the repetitive missions as "people's misconceptions" for example.

  • davisorle #15 2 years ago

    I'll be honest. I feel bad about it. I know they worked hard on the tittle. Its really I dont like it mostly cause it's not my kind of game. Actually for people that kile the whole "gang" thing of GTA games thing they would like APB. I just dont. The character creation etc is top notch. I dont know. I hope they release a trial for everyone to try out and check themselves asap. Would be the best way to go.

  • darkmorgado #16 2 years ago

    It does make me wonder as well why the game is only on PC. It would make more sense to me if they had released it on PS3/XBox, got the platform holders to provide server support (which seems to be their excuse for charging for playtime), and concentrated on adding regular content updates.

  • Metalfish #17 2 years ago

    Nah, I've played two of the betas and there are definitely some weapons that are so much more flexible as to be more powerful, you can't really pick where you fight most of the time so high rate of fire medium-range weapons win ~75% of the time. Pump action shotguns are borderline useless and any pistol that doesn't look like a cannon might as well be firing blanks. Yeah, you can sneak up on anyone and kill them with anything, but that doesn't mean that it's all lovely and balanced.

    Take MW, the starting weapons are usually very good all-rounders which still see plenty of use a few months down the line. In this no one is going to be using the basic load out in a few weeks....

  • Distributor #18 2 years ago

    Clearly grasping at straws.

  • Feanor #19 2 years ago

    "disappointing review scores"? As far as I can tell Eurogamer is the only review, nice negative spin there Eurogamer, smart - or not.

    PC Gamer gave it 55%.

    [link url=http:// www.pcgamer.com/2010/07/02/apb-review/
    ]http://ww w.pcgamer.com/2010/07/02/apb-re...[/link]

    Edited by 1 at 02/07/10 @ 17:41

  • sunjumper #20 2 years ago

    I too have to disagree with the statement that there are no 'better' weapons.

    Having played the beta for quite a while it was painfully obvious that there were a couple of weapons that weere simply better. The allround wonder N-Tec 5 springs to mind.
    And the many many times I got my arse handed to me I also had a look at what I was killed with and usually they were a permutation of one of the good weapons with added enhancements. Which increased thiongs like: range, accuracy and damage. Often at the same time.
    Thzese weapons were of course int he hand of the most expirienced players. So while mediocre once in a while players (like me and my friends) and newbies got to survive with unaugmented (and unaugmentable) weapons the people who put tons of time into the game honing their skills got these monsters into their arsenals.
    This leads to an horrible lack of balance that becomes more and more pronounced as the game goes on.
    This looks to me like a bad disgn decicion and also like bad business because two weaks from now every newbie will get slaughtered by the more expirienced players. Hardly something that makes you want to come back.

    Thislack of balance was pointed out in the forums time and again.
    The only thing that has changed is that the higher level weapons can now be bought if one grinds sufficiently.

    It is really tragic because the game is great fun when played with a couple of friends. It can be played for a short 10 to 20 minute bout or for a prolonged multi hour session driving around the city in a silly car listening to silly music.
    Also in the begining when everyone was still using the same weapons the fights were more fun and tactics did actually help.

    Later a team of five could be destroyed by one single campre on a rooftop with a enhanced rifle with which he could simply snipe everyone while being out of reange for everyone else.
    Or the fun of losing a long range sniper duel to someone with a ridiculously modded assault rifle.

  • Eraysor #21 2 years ago

    Perhaps cut the subscription until the game has enough content to be considered an MMO?

    EDIT: Having played the beta, I urge everyone to either not buy the game or not resubscribe once your 50 hours have elapsed unless they make some significant changes, especially the ridiculous 32-bit graphics limit. I mean, I can play Metro 2033 maxed out but not this. Madness.
    Edited by 2 at 02/07/10 @ 17:48

  • Subdominator #22 2 years ago

    No high expectations here. I thought APB sucked when I first heard about it and some investor had given 50 or so million dollar to Realtime Worlds to create a Massively Multiplayer game. I still think the game sucks and obviously it isn't the greatest one. My perception of APB was always "We had no clue how to include a storyline in Crackdown so now we make a game with no story at all". I think those guys at Realtime Worlds deserve to be down to earth again. After all Crackdown was not a brilliant game, it had severe flaws. And that's despite the fact that I love the game and still have the orb sound effect for incoming messages on my cell phone. ;) The only reason why Crackdown sold 1+ million copies was the Halo 3 beta. It's difficult to say, but my guess is that it would've sold only 500k worldwide without the beta and nobody would've cared. With the beta however Realtime Worlds went on to dig their own grave with APB. They won't find another investor. They'lll shut down within the next year, mark my words.

  • MaxiSleep #23 2 years ago

    "I remember on GTA 1, people laughed at it because it was a 2D game when Ridge Racer appeared. They laughed at the screenshots. They said, 'These guys are crazy releasing a 2D top down game'. But once they played the game a fair bit they go, 'Well actually it's kind of good fun'

    GTA 1 was actually just that - kind of good fun, but thats about it. Sub based gameplay has a much higher bar.

  • Pirotic #24 2 years ago

    Many of the people who had an interest in the game got into one of the many beta stages I'd have imagined, and so the reviews themselves shouldn't be too much of a concern. These are the guys who made Crackdown right? so it's not a case of not being talented enough to resolve it, and therefore just a matter of time (and a lot of patches) hopefully,

  • Zaiz #25 2 years ago

    "You shouldn't rate us down! We made a game that was completely dull with wonky mechanics, sure, but you didn't understand, duuude. It's more than just the wonky mechanics, you don't understand."

    "But Mr Game Maker, your game is only these wonky mechanics."

    "Well we still deserve a 10/10 for being the guys who made GTA."

  • sunjumper #26 2 years ago

    Despite its falings the game has a lot of potential.

    I wonder if the developers are willing to introduce some radical changes that the game needs to work better.

    Getting rid of the 'leveling' weapons would be a great start. It is far less jarring getting owned by a skilled player and also much more satisfying to win through skill instead of wondering whether one only did well because of superior equipment...
    Edited by 1 at 02/07/10 @ 18:16

  • Shrike #27 2 years ago

    This should have been a console game. I'm certainly in the market for a lightly persistent online game - somewhere between BF:BC2 and a full MMO - but the PC isn't the right place for it, if only because the amount of PCs that can actually run it half decently are comparatively rare. There's a reason SW:TOR looks (for want of a better phrase) like ass. You simply can't justify charging a sub for something like this, because as expensive as servers are to run you're not giving people the kind of expansive experience a subscription entails. When I used to pay for WoW or EVE the sub made instinctive sense because I was constantly being reminded of the size and scope of the world I had access to: not so with a team-based 3PS with social elements.

  • varkdm #28 2 years ago

    Well, the $50 million investment wasnt just for APB, it was to build a platform & technology on wich to build MMOGs, so APB isnt the only game for that money. To be fair their technology works.. well for me anyway. Framerates are stable, ive had no crashes in the last 18-20 hours of gaming, very little if any noticeable lag, reasonable load times and fluent controls. My PC isnt anything special either.

    They did listen to players during the beta and they made adjustments to the game accordingly. The requirement to use RTW points (IE micro transactions) was removed following repeated complaints on their forums, now its just an alternative to in game cash for people who dont want to wait.

    I completely disagree with his comments about "better guns". Take the standard sub machine gun that you have access to early in the game.. take someone of equal skill and then give them the high ranked triple upgraded version of the same submachinegun, with increased clip size, reduced recoil and high damage per shot, give that player slightly increased health or improved health regen times or reduced bullet damage... sorry but 9 times out of 10 the player with the uber gun is going to win. Its the one part of the game I really dislike and wished they had sorted out during beta. I'm a pretty reasoanble player typically threat ranked 12/15 .. but ive seen 3 threat 15 players with triple upgraded guns absolutely wipe the floor with us, against 7 of us. This is what I fear will kill the game, because new players joining are going to be coming up against more and more opponents with that gear as time goes on.

    People do have the wrong expectation of this game, not about it being good or bad, but a lot of people seem to think it should be like COD. Its more like planetside or guild wars really. Problem is people rush in and try to play it like they would COD - jump in and just run at the enemy all guns blazing, then get their arses handed to them and start crying that the game is shit because they are too lazy to learn how to play a tactical shooter properly.

  • brseg #29 2 years ago

    @varkdm - interesting post, cheers.

  • sunjumper #30 2 years ago

    @varkdm

    But APB is not a tactical shooter. It is an arcadey shooter that benefits from sound tactics.
    While tactics do help, flanking being a sensible option as is using supressive fire,players with better equipment still win. Also the regenerating health makes it very hard to use 'proper' tactics, although it can be of course used to ones advantage.


    Example: criminal is supressed by two enforcers taking pot shots. Third enforcer flanks the criminal and opens fire with automatic weapon. The criminla noticing that he is being hit turns around and shoots the enforcer with his buffed up machine pistol. He then hides behind a crate to regenerate his energy and goes on to slaughter the other two.

    Oh and another favourtive is getting respawned in the same place as the enemy players so that one has the incredible pleasure of being shot in the back while trying to get back to the conflicted area.

    Edited by 1 at 02/07/10 @ 18:28

  • Shrike #31 2 years ago

    To be fair though there was a hell of a lot more to Planetside at release than there seems to be to APB. God I miss Planetside.

  • Zaiz #32 2 years ago

    @varkdm

    Except Guild Wars had its mechanics nailed and everything worked silky smooth. Oh, and it was a typical MMO. >.> Not much of a similarity there at all, really! And APB isn't really tactical, its more...wonky and camping focused. There's almost no reason to play aggressively since the game doesn't reward aggressive play as much as it rewards camping. Except in Capture and Hold missions, which are best played by bum-rushing the capture spot in the last 20 seconds.

  • Ansob. #33 2 years ago

    "There are no more powerful characters and there are no more powerful guns in the game. But people die and they see a rating on a player. Rating has nothing to do with the kind of equipment they have. Our weapon system is exactly the same as Modern Warfare. We don't have more powerful weapons. We just have a different range of weapons."

    That's a nice, blatant lie, there (and ignoring the fact that MW2's balance is absolutely terrible, and CoD4's is only slightly better).

  • Derblington #34 2 years ago

    "disappointing review scores"? As far as I can tell Eurogamer is the only review, nice negative spin there Eurogamer, smart - or not.
    It's not spin. Reviews aren't published the day they're written, especially for magazines. There will be reviews for this already, tens of them, and RTW will have seen them. You, and the rest of the public, won't have.

  • MyPointIs #35 2 years ago

    GTA 1 had a slightly smaller bugdget.

  • chrisdearman #36 2 years ago

    Of course expectations are high, or why else would we even consider paying a subscription fee? It's not like there's a shortage of online shooters out there.

  • Blakester #37 2 years ago

    What I want to know is why this guy is being given the right to reply?

    No other developer gets the chance to argue against review scores via a convenient and timely interview...

  • chubster2010 #38 2 years ago

    re '"Some people had too high expectations. The game years ago was initially tagged as GTA MMO, which we'd never said. Obviously people put two and two together - our history and the fact it was online - and said, 'Oh it's going to be like a GTA MMO'

    Now...why would anyone think that this was going to be like a GTA MMO?....

    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=0DnXvGDmPoE
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=0DnXvGDmPoE[/link]

    I mean...sure...it's made by the makers of the original GTA....and looks exactly the same as Grand Theft Auto...and promises 100 000 players in the world... but aside from those little details, it looks nothing like a MMO GTA...

    @ Derblington
    re 'there will be reviews for this already, tens of them, and RTW will have seen them. You, and the rest of the public, won't have.'

    That's not necessarily true - from personal experience I can tell you that sites don't always send reviews to publishers before putting them online.
    Edited by 4 at 02/07/10 @ 19:23

  • LR100 #39 2 years ago

    @chubster2010 - The biggest thing is, they would have never, ever have said "This is not GTA", so more fool them.

  • LiteMrBubbles #40 2 years ago

    You need an APB Platinum Express Plus account membership to view this message without ads.

    Suck it, bad reviews and 66% MetaCritic score.

    I don't ever remember WoW having in-game advertising with its 10 dollar monthly fee.

  • dingo75 #41 2 years ago

    I will check it out when it's Free 2 Play which shouldn't take that long.
    The 4 hours in Beta (The servers were shut down while I was still playing it) showed me a dull game with repetitive missions.
    The thing that was the oddest to me was that once a mission was won / lost Criminals and Enforcers were just standing there where seconds before a big battle has happened.
    Then everyone shrugs and goes back to their cars since you can't shoot the guy that pissed you off on the other side anymore.
    Hilarious situation.
    I'd rather be ported back to my HQ instead after a mission.

    Unless you are big into customization of your chars / vehicles this game is hardly worth any money let alone a subscription fee.

  • Laserbream #42 2 years ago

    Hear hear Shrike. Though some nights I wake up in a cold sweat, certain that I just heard the sound of 20 noobhammers killing everything in sight.

  • Firejack #43 2 years ago

    Can't wait for Dave Jones to defend the game. I just hope he gets the message across. I'm a big fan of APB and am really enjoying playing it but the PR is terrible with lots of mixed messages. Hell some of those quotes have my confused and I consider myself very knowledgeable on APB.

    Overall the weapon balance and unlock system in APB is pretty good for the basic version of the weapons. They did a really good job of balancing them during beta. The idea behind the weapon unlock system is not to make your character more powerful but to give you more options and choice of weapons to better find something that suits your play-style and the map.

    Where things start going wrong is when you start receiving upgraded/upgradable versions of the basic guns. Suddenly the well balanced system is ruined. I can sort of understand why they did it since you can unlock all the basic versions of weapons easily in your 50 hours of playtime. They wanted to keep players playing.

    The main suggested change that the community requested was slightly different to the current upgrade system. Current upgrades improve range, rate of fire, accuracy etc with no negative effect. What has been suggested is each upgrade improves one attribute at the cost of another. So say you went for extra range, you'd have a smaller magazine. Or you went for more damage then you'd have a slower rate of fire. This would be in demand by players as it would give them better choices on how they played the game. While not making them more and more powerful then newer players or players with less time to unlock the best weapons.

    Of course in the end the whole system becomes pointless eventually. Once everyone has the best weapons you have the same very well balanced game you started with...

    Hopefully Monday will clear things up.

  • Stratix #44 2 years ago

    Oh no, I really liked it! What is wrong with me??!

  • butler` #45 2 years ago

    They've spent so much money on this and recruited such a large team. I bet the top brass are crying themselves to sleep every night. Terrible game is terrible.

    I've never seen Blizzard bring up MW/2 in an interview either...

  • Dizz #46 2 years ago

    lol, they're pulling a Cryptic: 'you people just DON'T GET IT'.
    Edited by 2 at 03/07/10 @ 13:26

  • Derblington #47 2 years ago

    That's not necessarily true - from personal experience I can tell you that sites don't always send reviews to publishers before putting them online. - chubster2010

    Well, considering Dave Jones is referencing them it clearly is true.

  • yogi #48 2 years ago

    What are the odds that PC gamers are actually being used as testers for a future console version? Because the gameplay in APB has 'unfinished' written all over it.

  • the_sas_man #49 2 years ago

    "Some people had too high expectations."

    Then why not come out last year and set the record straight.

    Having played the Beta considerably I'm surprised it got a 6. It's a flawed game with such huge potential. The key thing for me is lack of NPC. That what made WoW a success as it allowed for solo play and varied missions, whilst ofeering online combat.

    APB purely is online combat that becomes very tiresome.

    High expectations? What a muppet!

  • Grayvern #50 2 years ago

    The game is basically a multiplayer mission based shooter with a massive customisation backend, half the game, the part where you play is dull, the shooting just isn't fun. From my experience with the beta 6 or 55% is overly generous.

    In short Realtime worlds time would have been better spent if the people who created the character and content creation stuff, which if the game is anything to go by is most of them, were hired to add similar creation stuff to the inevitable Saints Row 3.

  • IronCladChicken #51 2 years ago

    @Shrike - Trolling is for guys with small dicks.

  • stoopidgreg #52 2 years ago

    From my experience of playing the beta, 6/10 seems like a good score...

  • Death-Jester #53 2 years ago

    I think they should knock another point off the score for that shameful playground-esque display of reasoning.