Moo3 better than civ3?

[Asesino_Virtual]

To Imran: Ah... no, the amount of tech in the game was published. 82 techs, just like most other civs. I was never enough to truely capture all the details of an entire human civilization, and it still doesn't. About the govenment list: it's exactly the same! They just removed fundementalism. Also stated quite clearly.

They added Nationalism.

To Asesinto: No, I'm NOT going to see that in CIV3. There are no allowences for growing religions. Show me where you draw this upon.

And, yes, now you have the culture factor. Read some previews, go to civfanatis.com and check the InFo Center.

[Harel]

The culture is a simple number repentation. It doesn't have any of the dynamics social, political and religious clases have all over the years.
Why don't you read MOO3 religion/ethoi model and see how religion should look like?

[FunkyGhost]

Am am looking forward to civ3 since it was announced. I am a extremely unfrequently gaming person and civ3 will probably be the first game I play since about one year. I never played any MOO game. So I just informed myself about it during the last hour. Oh my god!!!! It looks really amazing! There are so many concepts I always wanted to have in a civ game. I love theis macromanagement approach and I think this is really something new. Maybe I will play this game instead of civ3. You cannot get back the magic of the old days anyway, so why not trying something new?

[VetLegion]

Harel, I agree with what you said. Civ3 does not even try to be very inovative. But I dont expect them to.

It has a working formula. Simmilar to first person shooters, why, apart from graphics is quake 3 or UT better then Doom I? It is not... it is simply a genre and people like to play that genre.

I look forward to civ3. I ll probably like it, I liked civ I and civ II

Moo3 on the other hand, sounds truly revolutionary. I must have that game
But I doubt that they will implement all the features I read about (and I havent read them all!) Once they hit a deadline, many things will be ommited.

for true revolutions in the genre, independant projects are more likely to suceed: Clash of civilizations, Manifest Destiny and Guns Germs and Steel, just to name some. Keep an eye out for these

[Harel]

Have no fear. A great deal of the game has alreayd been programmed, including those features. In fact, just about any such feature (such as IFP, ethoi growth, population movement) is so basic to the game that it just can't ship without it: simply said, the entire design revolves around this.
MOO3 is also quite on schedule. Now, the next "big cut" is due to be decided every day now, so if any feature is going to be ommited for the game you are going to hear it in the next few days. Nothing major, however. I assure you.

[Mahdimael]

I have looked at the religion/social system for MOO3 and while it looks interesting, it also looks headache-inducing. MOO was about micromanagement, yes, but it was very simple. Ships,production or technology. This is taking it to the extreme. In the first MOO, you were a dictator with no rivals. If a planet rebelled, you sent enough stormtroopers over and subdued it. It was fun in it's way. You did what you wanted. In MOO3, you're subject to the whims of the populace. More realistic? Yes. More fun? We'll have to see, but I'm skeptical.

My final complaint about MOO3 is the underlying story (as far as I know, it's still in). This reminds me of Imperium Galactica II. That game was OK, but the story detracted from your control. You were always getting someone or fighting someone that the story dictated. The story elements got in the way of the gameplay. I hope the same doesn't happen with MOO3

[- Groucho -]

Harel: I think you're suffering from a lack of perspective. You may have inside knowledge of how MOO3 is shaping up, but I'll bet you don't have equal knowledge of CivIII. Don't let the fact that you have more detail on one blind you to the fact that you have less detail on the other.

He!!, they may both suck.

And for my 2 bits - I found MOO2 boring. It stuck around on my HD for a couple months and then got bumped. To much micromanagement and the individual races never really felt all that "real" to me, so I never was able to care much about them. The best games for me are the ones where you really can get a hate on for one of the other races. SMAC was good for that (Die, Miriam! DIE!) and so is Europa Universalis. MOO2 didn't do it for me - I was just put off by those bloody Antareans kicking your ass every few turns in the early game, and those goofy ship icons that looked like they were designed more with the amount of screen they were allowed to take up than actually looking like ships... yuck.

MOO3, IMHO, has a lot of shortcomings to overcome.

[Harel]

Actually, I do know quite a bit about CIV3. Actually, there isn't much to reveal beyond the already released information, but I do have some *inside* stuff.
About MOO3 overcoming MOO2 shortcoming... well, for that, you REALLY have to read the information available on MOO3. MOO3 will have NO micro-management at all: everything is done by automated leaders which are controlled by broad edicts you issue.

BTW, I found CIV2 to also require an amazing amount of micro-management as well. Managing a large nation with many dozen of cities is not a short or easy task. About MOO2 races being boring: personaly, I agree, but a lot of people won't agree with you. You would agree with me that at least they are more different and unique then CIV2 genetic civs. You may relate to them, but for all purposes there was no difference between them in CIV2.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Harel
Actually, I do know quite a bit about CIV3. Actually, there isn't much to reveal beyond the already released information, but I do have some *inside* stuff.

And what, praytell, dost thou, in thy mind, have?

Please tell. We won't rat you out. Bonus points to whoever tells me what movie my first sentence comes out of.

[Rasputin]

perhaps they havent altered too much because the basic system works well and a lot of people liked it that way.. why fix somewthing that isnt broken in th majorities eyes..

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Mahdimael
I don't post very often on the boards, but I am a gamer from way back. I played both the original MOO and Civ games, and they were both excellent. They offered gameplay that was streamlined and intuitive and fun.

Later, I played MOO2 and Civ2. Where Civ2 stayed close to it's roots, MOO2 deviated slightly. MOO2 became Master of Magic...in Space. Gone were many of my favorite features, but they did add an improved tactical combat system and a few other goodies, so I played it nonetheless, despite the fact that by the endgame I was attacking people with fleets the equivalent of 40 Death Stars.

Now we are on the cusp of MOO3 and Civ3. Once again, the Civ series appears to be expanding on what made the other games great. MOO3, however, seems to be deviating even more from the original than the second game. While I agree that the idea of being the leader of a galactic empire with individual subcommanders running things is intruiging, it doesn't sound like the MOO I remember. After reviewing the site, I'm still not sure what still remains the same between this game and the original.

I'm not trying to judge the game before it's released, but it's hard not to form an impression in one's mind given the information that has been released. I would love for MOO3 to both recapture the feel of the original and be a great game in it's own right. But given the complexity of the game and the deviation from the other games in the series, I don't believe it will happen, be that due to bad design or bugs or any other ailment that affects computer games. Will it be a great MOO game, or will it be a great space strategy game or will it be neither? We'll see. Hopefully it's good.

Mahdimael, you have captured my feelings on the whole business with the MOO and CIV series. the originals MOO and CIV were rivals. I bought them at the same time, both because I had heard their successors were among the greatest games of all time. I didn't have the moolah for moo2 and civ2, but thought I'd try them both out.
They both hooked me - Bad. eventually I got civ2 cheap, and discovered I loved it even more than civ itself. more depth, more strategy, beautiful. When I finally got MOO2, I looked forward to MOO and more. what I got was like someone had turned it into a civ2 mod. I was dissapointed, and although I played some, it failed to catch my heart. I don't have hopes for MOO3, because although I didn't like it, a lot of people raved over it. Kind of like Diablo II.

Harel- I must be missing something. at some points you say that civ3 falls short because it doesn't give you enough stuff to work with, then at other points you praise the imperial focus points in moo3 which don't let you deal with this stuff.

[Father Beast]

Wow!

When I started this thread, I never imagined the discussion would become this heated.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Harel
MOO3 works because it layers depth. It has a very nifty way to allow for hidden information, layers of data and interaction, and automated management of many levels. So you got corruptions and plots, religions and cultures, a relasitic trade and tourism system, relocation of population points, and so much more... all of this while still allowing you an easier gameplay then CIV3. Why? It removes all the micro-management. It simplies and streamlines gameplay. It make it easier and more intuative to play, yet offers far more depth.
You should really read the gameplan of MOO3.

Game plan doesn't mean anything. Ever heard of Outpost, by Sierra? It's a game that looked awesome on paper, yet bombed utterly when shipped. As a matter of fact, the more hype a game generates the more skeptical I become. My general sentiment is "A good game needs no hype."

Since there is no evidence that MoO 3 has cornered the market of good programmers, I'm assuming it has the same share as that of Firaxis. It seems to be it's quite implausible then the MoO 3 team has done in such a short time at least 5x the work Firaxis did. Being a geek myself this comes across as highly suspicious.

I'm not having any hopes for the so called "automated management." If they have done a poor job for Civ, I don't see any reason why I should have hopes for something 20 times as complex. Which means I have to deal with all the micromanagement myself.

To which I say, pah!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now Imran, you are just adding your own opinions! MOO2 didn't suck. In fact, it's considered the best game of this genre. Also, if you look closely at any game magazine list of the top 100th games of the 20th centuary, MOO2 got higher results on average then CIV2. If anything, MOO2 is considered a far better game in most critics eye.

Now you are simply going crazy (or dogmatic, I'm not sure which). Moo2 was rated no where NEAR Civ2. Any Top 100 Games had Civ2 (usually with Civ1) in the top 5. Moo was WAAAAAY down the list. Civ2 owns the highest ratings in many game magazines, even to this day (PC Gamer had Civ2 #1 with a 97, but it was beaten by a 98 to SMAC).

Moo2 wasn't rated nearly as high as Civ2, which is considered to be the greatest strategy game of all time by a majority of critics.

And yes, I don't see CIV2 as a true sequel as well. It simply fleshed out the graphics. It was very disappointing.
I agree with you that most sequels today have a tendency to stay very closely to the paradigm defined by the prequel. I find it awful. The game industry today just doesn't renovate. It becomes statis and reharshed.

Innovation is for new games. Sequals are more of the same, only some good new additions. How can you possible decry "staying close to the paradigm" by a sequal?!!!! If you don't then it isn't a sequal. That is why I don't consider Moo3 a sequal and would rather have Civ3.

CIV3 has added far too few additions. Goods, borders, cultures and a better diplomacy system. That's it, after so many years! The game industry has matured and evolved, not just graphics wise. I have far higher expections of game published today.

Resources, better combat rules, colonies, culture having a basic effect on ALL gameplay... that is VERY innovative for a sequel.

In my eyes CIV3 took the most basic advancements and improvement and stuck them on. It made no fundemental change, not even one.

*AHEM* You aren't listening! Resources and Culture are fundamental changes to the way Civ works. It totally changes the game!

That would be good if the old paradigm was perfect

Pretty damned close! I consider Civ2 to be the greatest game of all time, by far!

What happened to change for the sake of change?

Why would you want that? That is what happened to CtP!

There is not even a single fundemental change to the concept of the game

There is that not listening thing again...

People have quoted CTP2.... even CTP2 is still the same thing! What is the real difference between them? Same terrain, cities, units, technologies and statistics.
I call for a drastic change! Change the entire concept of cities, for example. Scrap it and build something new. Maybe it won't be good, but at least you will TRY to create something new!

WHY?! I want my Civ, not some crap someone tried to make because they wanted something new! CtP, in my opinion went too far for the original paradigm. Innovation should be confined to the paradigm which the series resides in.

perhaps they havent altered too much because the basic system works well and a lot of people liked it that way.. why fix somewthing that isnt broken in th majorities eyes..

EXACTLY!

[Mahdimael]

I love Simtex games. Despite the fact that they shipped with bugs, once patched they are some of the most fun games I've played. I still play the original MOO, and occassionally Master of Magic (MOM).

To change subjects rapidly, I think an important question does need to be raised at this point, and that is: When does a game really stop being a sequel and instead becomes a whole new game? As was pointed out earlier, Dune 2 was vastly different from the original game. Should it have been called something else? Possibly, though it's a unique case when a book/movie license is involved.

Can Civ3 be considered a true sequel? Assuredly. As far as we know, it retains the gameplay of the original and expands on certain elements. Let's imagine for a moment that Civ3 comes out and is Civ2, but has a tactical combat screen now. To some, this would signify a change so drastic that they would not consider it a sequel.

Looking now at MOO3, we find that it is a drastically changed game. Real time tactical combat, the removal of many of the original races (bulrathi, alkari, etc) (As an aside, I find it funny that they cut those races out for being cheesy and yet retained the lizardmen and insectpeople. Even the Silicoids and Meklars are ripped off. Ever play Star Control? Mmmhrmnmrm (or whatever) and the Chenjesu...) , the installation of a system where you have only a limited number of things you can do per turn, story-driven gameplay, etc. So what remains of the original games? Klackons and planets is what it amounts to. And due to these factors, I can't call MOO3 a sequel. That doesn't mean it's going to be a bad game, but it isn't what I would call a sequel to MOO.

Finally, we have to wonder if this matters at all? Is anyone going to care if it's called MOO3 or Space Junkies on a Rampage 18? The fact is, it does matter. Someone who may have heard about or played the original games and doesn't frequent the Internet much may get the wrong idea of the game. Even if this doesn't occur, the game itself will be judged by it's name.

For a final example, I give you the short-lived developmental game StarCon. It was a sequel to the hilarious and interesting Star Control series of action/adventure games. Yet it itself was a space simulator in the vein of Wing Commander. Accolade realized that people didn't want Wing Commander with Ur-Quan, they wanted more of the same gameplay that made the earlier games so much fun. The game died early in development.

[demokrat]

I've been following the development of both MOO3 and Civ3. The only thing I can say is:

MOO3 will be better than Civ3.

There are about a hundred reasons for that, but I am way too lazy to write them down. Guess you'll have to wait for 2002Q1 to find out why.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
I'm intrigued by this imperial focus idea that moo3 has. I'll hold off judgement till I see at least a beta/demo of the games

i must admit the idea sounds great on paper.
still, if firaxis introduced something as bold, apolytoners would tear them apart without a single day of playing the game. i mean, people here are stirring up riots for a lousy worker unit and/or the layout of the city screen.

the fact is, moo3 does not generate even remotely comparable interest and you people are prepared to swallow a complete game rehaul. you would've burned firaxis down if it tried the same...(serapis, in no way was this meant as a reply to you, i just quoted you to continue where you started

[Harel]

To Imran, about game ratings: No, actually I'm not dogmatic. You have me on ICQ: shall we start counting pages toghter? I will prove my point in a short order.


Cultures and goods: those do NOT change the way CIV works! So goods are required to build a few special units that weren't there before. Cool feature, but does it fundementaly change the game? Hardly. Same with culture: it's a different way to measure borders. A nice twist, but really, nothing more.

To KrazyHorse: Sorry, I should'nt have even mentioned it. No, I can't say anything.

To Imran, about CTP: beg pardon, what DID CTP change? The combat system, a bit... the trade system, a bit... the way tile improvements are added. What else? Where did it go "too far"? The game is a striking clone of CIV2. Down to the same cities management screen, the same tech tree...
Let me say this: with the expection of the trade/combat/tile system, everything else could have been a CIV2 scenario, down to the probe in the future and expanded government/tech list. This is hardly a massive change. In fact, I would say even CTP isn't a true "sequel", if it was a sequel. It was, again, the same of the old thing.

About that saying "when something isn't broken": I would say go and fix it before it becomes broken. The game industry is maturing, people and growing up and gaining exprience. Designers become more exprienced in their work, and know what they are doing.
Why then, do we get a clone of a game that was produced at the begining of "time", or at least computer gaming time? Sure, it was a fun game. An excellent game. Does this mean we are not going to dare expand upon it now?
All I've seen on the CIV3 proposal list and CTP2 just don't cut it. Those are small tweaks to an existing paradigm. This paradigm, in my eyes and many others, is already too old. It needs a massive re-write. But Sid seems content about adding a few features and expansations. I would say again: EVERYTHING is CIV3 is features. Nothing is a massive change. If you percieve them as a massive change, they you buy the CIV3 hype a little too much.

To Urban ranger: I'm very aware that MOO3 could bomb. I never said it was a better game. Maybe it will have zero game play. But, at least it tries to innovate which put it for now on a higher and better position. If both games will succeed in delivering what they want, MOO3 will be a better game by far. Sure, it could fail, but I doubt that. We are doing a good job so far, most of the ideas have been turned into easy-to-program algorithem, we got two amazing people designing the AI (with a long time and education in AI programming). I feel confident.

To Mahdimael: Let's take the Starcon example. See what happened instead? The series did, and we were left with a crappy Star control III for the last candidate.
I'm not saying it's a good idea to jump from arcade to space simulation, but at least it's an intresting twist.
I do percieve MOO3 to be a sequel. By your logic, MOO2 isn't a sequel too because it practicially change every economic model it has.

About sequels in general: I believe a true sequel innovates. Changes. Radically changes. It is a sequel because it draws upon the old game for ideas, concepts and plot. It's a sequel because the older game is a jumping stone, and nothing more.
What we are getting with CIV3 (and, truthfully, with most games) is nothing but an add-on. Think about it: a better game engine and a few extra features. Sounds exactly like an add-on. This is not a new game. When I buy a new game and pay 40$, I expect it to be DIFFERENT. I don't care if it is called CTP3 or CIV3 or the 'conquest of the pig hoggers'. I want it to be a good game, never something I've seen before.
If it's a sequel, I expect to be reminded of the old game. I expect to smile, occasionaly, when I recognize something new. But I expect the majority of things to change, or why do I buy a new game? For purely marketing reason.
Tell me, everyone: do you honsetly think Firaxis can take the old CIV2 game, patch it to oblivion, and produce a huge patch/add-on? If the answer is yes, I shouldn't buy a new game. If all I am getting is a better version of something new, then give me an add-on.
If a buy a new game, it's a new game in my eyes. That it is a sequel doesn't matter. I don't attribute "holyness" values to series names. I judge a game by it's content, and today I have far better expections of a game then I had 10 years ago.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by LaRusso
the fact is, moo3 does not generate even remotely comparable interest and you people are prepared to swallow a complete game rehaul. you would've burned firaxis down if it tried the same...(serapis, in no way was this meant as a reply to you, i just quoted you to continue where you started

Damn and I thought people cared about me

[Mahdimael]

Remember, Harel, that Star Control III was not designed by the team that had done the first 2 (Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III, I believe). The new team ripped out most of the old races that we knew and loved and replaced them with what they believed were adequate replacements. Sound familiar? Obviously, we're comparing apples to oranges here, but it is an interesting parallel.

I can understand your feelings about sequels, but the fact is, most games (or movies or whatever) are not like that. Speed and Speed 2, The Star Wars Trilogy, Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia, Battle Chess, Super Mario Brothers, and so on. In most cases, sequels result because the first iteration of whatever the thing is successful enough to warrant more of the same. Is this a result of our society's obsession with fads? Probably. It explains Pokemon

Now imagine if the next Star Wars came out and there were no Jedi, Sith, or Wookies for whatever reason. Would it be Star Wars? It would be hard to say yes. Those things are fundamental to Star Wars. In fact, the reason so many adults disliked the new Star Wars is that it didn't have the characters they remembered. Kids, conversely, enjoyed it, having never seen the other movies.

Even when the sequel does change somewhat radically, as from Star Control 1 (resource strategy game) to Star Control 2 (action/adventure), they still retained what made the original so addictive and fun: that is, the combat. In reality, they expanded on it by giving the player a ship that they could customize and take into battle.

(Jeez my rants are long)

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Game plan doesn't mean anything. Ever heard of Outpost, by Sierra? It's a game that looked awesome on paper, yet bombed utterly when shipped. As a matter of fact, the more hype a game generates the more skeptical I become. My general sentiment is "A good game needs no hype."

By any chance were you thinking about Daikatana? or on the other hand, it could be more like Black And White. hmmmnnn.....

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I'm not having any hopes for the so called "automated management." If they have done a poor job for Civ, I don't see any reason why I should have hopes for something 20 times as complex. Which means I have to deal with all the micromanagement myself.

To which I say, pah!

Actually, urban, you won't have to deal with the micromanagement yourself because the game won't let you. imperial focus points, you know.

[Father Beast]

Mahdiamael-

I want to say just what it was that turned me off about MOO2, and let the idea of what a sequel is go by the wayside for the moment.

When I played the Original Master Of Orion, I was entranced by the whole game and the control I had over my colonies. The sliding bars were awesome. the massing of huge fleets of perhaps thousands of little ships, able to take on monsters several times their size until they got streaming weapons. the endlessly beautiful diplomacy model, where I could get on somebody's good side by attacking their enemies. I couldn't get enough. I still play sometimes, when I'm sure I won't be disturbed for several hours.

It was my rival with civ for just those reasons. I loved the original civ for the vast city building and looking to plant that next perfect city location. but I was irritated when a single unit of any size took a huge chunk of production from me, when I could only research one tech at a time, and war being declared for little or no reason, by little tin tyrants I could crush under my feet.

I finally got MOO2, and was vastly disappointed. all of a sudden I can't have monstrous fleets, because the game artificially limits you with those silly command points, and doesn't take into account whether it's a dinky little scout, or a massive warship. instead of those wonderful sliding bars to deal with millions of people, I discover single people to move around, and pop limits of 4 sometimes. 4!?!?! Instead of that wonderful multiple tech trees, I'm limited to reseaching a SINGLE tech at a time?
it looked like they saw the success of civ, and turned the sequel into a civ clone. by LIMITING the unlimited things in MOO that were so great.

and now MOO3 is coming. and with that ridiculous "imperial focus" nonsense, it looks as if they will be limiting the game even further. I'm not falling for it again.
If only I could play like the original MOO, with multiple tech trees, unlimited ships, and sliding bar colony control, then all those thousands of worlds they parade in front of us would look really really good. if only.....


so, mahdimael, what makes a sequel? bigger and better and deeper, but don't change the basic gameplay. if it works, don't fix it...
civ2 was a fine sequel to civ. same basic gameplay. new stuff, rules tweaking on quite a few levels, diplomacy improvement. but I could still play it out of the box without cracking the manual, being a civ vet.
check with heroes of might and magic (though admittedly they are quicky sequels), Diablo, or others (I have other problems with D2, but the basic gameplay is the same). it's the same, but more and better. that's why we buy them.

if a sequel wants to be a different game, say if you want Diablo 2 to be a first person shooter, then you're making something new with the names and likenesses of old stuff for name value.

about CTP-
I'm afraid I have a differing opinion there. it is in the spirit of true sequels, improving and expanding many things, while keeping the same basic gameplay. it's problem isn't with being to innovative. its problem seems to be that it's just not as fun, according to many people.
I'm not sure myself. I just bought it and am trying my first game

[Father Beast]

Oh and in case anyone didn't get my opinion-

MOO vs. CIV
a tie

MOO2 vs. CIV2
civ2 the clear winner

MOO3 vs. CIV3
no contest, civ3 has my attention, moo3 looks like its being broken even more

[Mahdimael]

I agree with you, Father Beast on all of those points. I didn't hate everything in MOO2, but a lot of it was disappointing. I thought the combat was improved, with firing arcs and fighters and so on. The technology tree irritated me, as did the multiple planets at a star. It wasn't even so much their inclusion as their implementation. The same applies to the custom civ creation. It was a good idea, but poorly implemented. Certain skills or combinations were overpowering. The command points thing was a pain in the butt.

You're absolutely correct when you say Microprose saw the success of Civ and, more importantly, Master of Magic. If you look at the colony screen in MOO2 and the city screen in MOM, you'll find they're nearly identical.

I would say a sequel improves on those things that make a game great, and adds to the overall experience. Identifying the greatness of a game is not always easy, though. Even so, taking a vast departure from the original game almost ensures that you will get away from the fun aspects.

MOO3 does this. There's little shown to make me believe that it will resemble the original game at all. Does this mean it will be a bad game? No. It may well be fun in it's own right. But does it mean that it will be a bad sequel to MOO? I would have to say yes. It does depart dramatically from the original game (the one considered a classic).