Is MOO3 going down the drain? - Page 2

Stormhound · April 29, 2002, 07:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
When Emrich, one of the founders of QS, got the axe, you can tell the company is up the proverbial shits creek without a paddle.

...

Say what you want about Firaxis, but both Sid and Braggs are vets of the industry. They decided financial reality is more important for a company than any game design written on paper. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about QS.

Alan was not one of the founders of QS, QS has been around for over 16 years (which I think makes Bill Fisher a "vet of the industry"), and Alan started out many moons ago as an editor for one of the computer gaming magazines (and is also a vet).

That QS is laying people off and trimming the design probably speaks for the financial reality vs. game design aspect as well.

But aside from those glaring errors of fact...

Harlequiin · April 29, 2002, 11:07

i just hate it when fscking publishers are unwiling to invest a little bit more to make a potentially great game realize its potential. its obvious that QS has been hamstrung by this and so moo3 has been having abit of a trim... that trimming involving some of the very major things that set it aside as a very new and innovative game.

TCO · April 29, 2002, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Harlequiin
i just hate it when fscking publishers are unwiling to invest a little bit more to make a potentially great game realize its potential. its obvious that QS has been hamstrung by this and so moo3 has been having abit of a trim... that trimming involving some of the very major things that set it aside as a very new and innovative game.

BS! QS should be able to make the game on time, up to specs, as agreed upon. And maybe even get it done quicker and cheaper to make a better profit. These developers sound like kids who can't turn in their homework on time.

Sorry boys and girls. In the real world you have to deliver.

Straybow · April 30, 2002, 17:03

Seems like their initial beta phase (as agreed and funded by InFrogGrames) was very restricted. Maybe they had a private board and such things, but at least on Delphi and the main MOO3 sites not a peep about play-testing until axes started whackin' away.

Considering the fan base available that seems a sign of poor planning somewhere, maybe in the publishing contract with the froggies or… uh idunno.

Urban Ranger · May 1, 2002, 05:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormhound
Alan was not one of the founders of QS, QS has been around for over 16 years (which I think makes Bill Fisher a "vet of the industry"), and Alan started out many moons ago as an editor for one of the computer gaming magazines (and is also a vet).

My apologies, I have just never seen any game that was designed/published by Quicksilver. The name did not ring a bell.

As to what constitutes a vet, I don't think being an editor for CGW counts for much. Sure, he might have seen a whole lot, but he had never gotten down to the nitty gritty.

If Mr Fisher is really a vet as you say, and he let all this mess slided by him without noticing, I have some serious doubts about his skills in handling game development projects and in overall management.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormhound
That QS is laying people off and trimming the design probably speaks for the financial reality vs. game design aspect as well.

So we have an agreement here.

Stormhound · May 1, 2002, 07:50

That'll be the day, UR.

Ozymandous · May 1, 2002, 08:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

If Mr Fisher is really a vet as you say, and he let all this mess slided by him without noticing, I have some serious doubts about his skills in handling game development projects and in overall management.

Easy to pass judgement on what you percieve to be true when you don't know all of the facts, eh? Have you ever worked for a company thsat makes PC games? If not, how do you know how they really function or not?

Mr. Fisher might have his companies actions more exposed now, but that's only because QS decided to let the fans in on the project more than any other developer has before, a process they will NOT do again based on the piss-poor attitudes of the peanut galleries here and especially on Delphi.

If you don't know of a subject you might be better served to hold judgement, but then again that would apply to about 99% of the people who post here, myself included at times. *shrug*

CMartin · May 1, 2002, 16:05

I think MoO3 has the POTENTIAL to be the best strategy game out when it is realeased. The problem I see though is that because they are planning on having the computer run much of your empire for you, with you only being able to manage bits and pieces of it, is that the AI for doing so must not be buggy. By buggy I don't mean that it should choose the perfect choices, but rather that it should choose logical choices based upon a given situation. Hopefully bad decisions will not be the result of poor computer AI disguised as "corrupt" politicians or some other such thing.
By the way Civ. 3 is a great game.

Crazy_Vasey · May 1, 2002, 16:52

I'm struggling to work up my enthusiasm for the game now. All the trimming of features and dropping of staff is making me a bit antsy on its quality and there are other games I'm gonna be getting like Morrowind and GTA3.

AnubisWoD · May 19, 2002, 18:11

I greatly disliked what they did witht he game to start with. I will play it but I dont consider it to be a Moo game because it has almost none of the elements from the other games. It is still good though so I will play it (restatement)