We'll make Turning Point better - Spark Comments by Robert Purchese

Ugh.

Fair play to them, the concept itself is very interesting imo, reminds me of Freedom Fighters.

Pushing it back to improve on the compaints raised by people who have played the demo is a good thing and something more devs should do.

They expect us to believe this then part with our hard earned cash?

I'm sorry but the demo did it for me ......NEXT TIME SPARK RELEASE A DEMO WITH FINISHED CODE!

Idiots!

I believe this game will be an eye-opening examination of alternate history theory and a valuable artistic contribution to world war 2 study in general.

I was hoping this would be good... looks like an early xbox1 game imo and the controls/hit detection is plain inexcusable.

That was finished code. The problem was they didn't expect the complaints. What this shows is that they have either inadequate play testing in place or the development team simply ignored any qa feedback they got. I've seen a lot of arrogant devs (I was guilty of it on a few occasions), who think the QA guys don't know squat and simply talk down their suggestions at meetings.

After a really eye opening playtest session with some local gamers, it really opens your eyes that you can get too close to a game you are developing and simply fail to see the flaws.

So I'll give kudos to Sparks for having the guts to see that the gameplay needs some tweaking. Now if only the burnout paradise crew had done this too.

It's not the prettiest game true but early XBox game? What in Jesus' name are some of you smoking???

It's rubbish. I've seen better looking live arcade games.

I'm fine ta. Maybe my expectations for next gen differ from yours. The demo sucks more than a whore on a busy day, 99% of people have stated exactly the same as me.

Did we make a difference? Let's hope so!

Did we make a difference? Let's hope so!

Me too I was really looking forward to this.... Oh well.

JSPOOLE: What's it like working at Spark?

in an alternative world this is a good game

What did we expect them to say? "Yeah, sorry - that's the final game. Please buy it anyway."?

This is merely lies from Codemasters' marketing department - as usual.
From the company that brought you rendered screenshots of Rally cars, then fired anyone who let slip that they were renders...

@ penhalion

That's probably exactly what happened. For some bizarre reason, QA people tend to get ignored most of the time when pointing out issues in games, despite them being hired to do just that.

The turning point demo was truly truly dreadful.

It didnt look all that bad to be honest, but handled like sludge, had terrible AI, boring linear gameplay had a bad framerate due to the dreadful unreal engine.

Please please please Infinity ward license out your engine and lets rid the world of UE3!

Yeah, good luck with that...

"Try our new game its great!"

"You didnt like it? Forget the demo, the full game is nothing like it!"

Lies

The damage was done, I think. Even if they release a significantly improved demo, they might find that people don't even try it (unless they call it Turning Point: MUCH BETTER DEMO).

JSPOOLE - I can only assume you have low standards if you enjoyed the turning point demo. Isolated it may seem okay but compared to any other FPS it just doesnt cut the mustard.

The UE3 engine has proven itself to be difficult to work with. There are a lot more bad, truly bad and awful games out there using UE3 than there are good ones.

UE3 works better from a 3rd person perspective, but frankly games like turning point, turok and frontlines suffer too much from the engine.

Infinity ward however, have crafted a beautiful engine, it's fast and fluid and has incredible detail and animation.

It's called progress and some embrace it.

OK so it's not Call of Duty or Halo but that doesn't make it shit, yeah judging from the demo it needs some polish and if that's what they've done then great, I'll wait for the finished product before I judge the whole game.

I agree with JSPOOLE, stop whining like a bunch of teenage girls.

The Unreal Engine? you seriously what to get rid of a very good engine that through being licensed out will drastically reduce development time not to mention how versatile it is.

Also it's not exactly the first time unfinished code has been released on live.

@JSPOOLE

There's no need to insult people. Personally, I don't consider myself an idiot. Others may see differently but certainly not based on seven word comment posted on a gaming forum...

You're not doing your own profile any favours though. Especially considering your inability to accept the opinions of others on what is an entirely subjective matter.

@farticusmaximus

Have you actually used both engines?

first Bungie with Halo3 beta, then Sony with Home and now Spark with a demo; listening to feedback and implementing changes based upon it!? Good times, good times. Looks like someone somewhere knows that betas aren't demos, demos aren't finished and feedback is invaluable and the whole process is more worthy to a title than just as a marketing exercise. As Bill Hicks said "If you work in marketing..."

This is stupid. demos are released to MAKE YOU WANT to buy the game, not beta-test it.

played the demo

was rubbish, didn't add anything too new or inventive

wont be buying

come on now, we all know Bush rigged the results and the majority didn't vote for him...

Mr-Brett:

"Have you actually used both engines?"

I've not developed using either, but I have played (360 only) every UE3 engine game and I've played CoD4 and could tell within a minute of play that the IW engine is superior in every way to the UE3 engine. This is purely from a technical standpoint. Framerate/texture quality/lighting/animation frames.

I'm not asking for Turning point to be 'just like' CoD, but there is a minimum acceptable quality for any product and this just doesnt meet acceptable quality. I liked the art direction, kinda cartoony and the cityscape looked good (whist not moving) from the scaffold atop the building.

From a technical point of view though, turning point failed to tick any of the required boxes.


"This is stupid. demos are released to MAKE YOU WANT to buy the game, not beta-test it."

I totally agree.

To people defending this demo:

What the hell are you smoking?

The graphics - while not as terrible as some people have made out - did genuinely make me think of an Xbox games. The hit detection is a complete joke - i.e. it's simply not there most of the time. After firing about 6 shots into the chest of a Nazi he finally played his "hit" animation and appeared to take damage. The controls are bodged - there are three settings for turning sensitivity, Medium is too slow (for me, but I'm not one of these gamers who likes to turn 360 in a millisecond or anything) and Fast was ridiculously unplayable to me.

Frankly, this game should be an XBLA game at best. I'm not graphics whore, but to pay £40 for a 360 game it needs to actually use the power of the console and not suck badly. Will be interested to see how much (if at all) the game changes before release. Shame, as I really liked the concept and wanted this to be good.

I downloaded it last night - but didn't have any high expectations anyway (though thought it would entertain for more than 10 minutes or so). Just wish DMC4 demo would become available for non-gold access.

You sure you're hitting the enemies? They go down fine for me...

Make sure your bullets are actually aimed in their direction, that should fix the problem.

Wait, which end do the bullets come out again?

JSPOOLE - calm down mate, no-one called your mam a whore or spilled your pint.

I said specifically I didnt want every game to be just like CoD, just to live up to something close to the technical standards that have been set by it.

I'm all for variety, just not at the expense of quality.

Does anyone else get the distinct feeling that developers are releasing demos as betas for the public to test for them? I mean if I had a penny for every article I've read over the past year from devs promising to fix all the issues in their demos then I'd have at least... oooo... a quid by now! Alternatively, if we aren't beta testing, why do devs release incomplete/early demos knowing full well that it could adversely affect people's opinion of the game, or even sales? :?

Anyway, I thought the demo was OK, it started off well before becoming a bit "ordinary". Deffo not a purchase for me though as I'm actively avoiding FPSs this year due to almost overdosing on them on the 360 during its past two years. Condemned 2 will be my next first-person game but that's not exactly a gun-and-run FPS anyway.

The look of this game is fine as it's not going for the realism of COD4. Just the menu screen should have told people that. The problems people are having is with the gameplay.

If you shoot the soldiers in freeview, then they seem to ignore bullet hits a lot of the time. If you shoot them from aim mode, they seem to get hit just fine. It wasn't obvious about climbing ledges etc. etc. and I even managed to exit the game the first time I tried to play, because I naturally figured the white highlighted menu item was the one selected (as opposed to the dark, barely flashing item on the menu).

The gameplay has some major issues which the developers simply didn't seem to be aware of.

If they released the demo as a Beta I'd take it in a better light than releasing it as a demo then saying 'ok it's shit, we'll fix it'.

The former implies they want the game to meet gamers expectations, the latter implies they view customers as suckers and dont care as long as it goes on sale and breaks even.

@ JSPOOLE: You lost any semblance of credibility when you said that you liked Turok.

I played the TP demo and it was quite bad. At first I was awed by the opening scene. From then on everything started falling apart. Jumping feels heavy, aiming is laborious, AI is primitive and the scene where the mob starts running away at the end is ridiculous. The game definitely needs work for it to be of acceptable standards. Can these developers just hire normal gamers to do the playtesting?

"Can these developers just hire normal gamers to do the playtesting?"

I was a play tester about 10 years ago. Believe me, the QA department is aware and no doubt the development team is aware too.

Unfortunately it's the Finance and Marketing departments that make all the decisions these days and there simply isn't time to polish games to the same degree in the rush to get to retail.

@ Greebo: I understand what you are saying. Surely its harder and more expensive to market a crap game though.

"I understand what you are saying. Surely its harder and more expensive to market a crap game though."

Couldn't agree more, but I think the people at the top lose sight of that or aren't gamers in the first place and wouldn't know (or possibly care) if the product is good or not!.

It's not just the games industry that suffers from this sadly.

I'm gonna blame da management :-)

Frankly, this demo is crap. As many here have pointed, it made me think I was playing an Xbox 1 game: everything was boxy and there was no sign of "next gen shaders" on objects. Controls feels terrible as well, which is utterly unforgivable if even the graphics sucks so hard.
It's not UE's fault though, GOW looked like charm, Bioshock look waaay better than this shitty game and UT3 on PS3 is beautiful (and I'm sure will be on 360 as well). It's only a matter of who is using it :)

Wow, what maturity.

While to you, it might sound like you are rising above everyone in your opinions, you actually come across as an arrogant child to the rest of us.

At the end of the day, if teams are becoming bigger to cope with 'next-gen' requirements you are going to get quite a few sub-standard games (this is a good example, as is Turok) because there simply are not enough quality development staff to go around. It's very, very easy to screw a game up, it can be the result of one or two rubbish devs in a position to make key game decisions.

JSPOOLE is awesome he has so many friends in real life because he is so good at argumentz!