Anyone still really Enthused about MOO3?

[TCO]

How many hours have you spent playing Civ2? Do the math on $/ pre hour. It's a lot less than movie costs, etc. 80 bucks is no big deal for a good game.

[moomin]

Yeah, I agree. Gaming is a hobby with a spectacularly low cost/h. I'd happily pay a hundered dollars for a great game.

But most software houses would have to get thier act together in that case - nobody's gonna take paying that kind of money for haöf-finished betas.

[wmtrexler]

How many hours have you spent playing Civ2? Do the math on $/ pre hour. It's a lot less than movie costs, etc. 80 bucks is no big deal for a good game.

That is very true. I personnally would rather spend $80 one time the pay an annual subsciption fee for games such as Shattered Galaxy. If you compare the $ per hour I am getting off cheap.

[moomin]

dp

[Rantz]

Originally posted by strategy
But frankly, what do QS care? After all, how much the game sells will not depend on the fans or how good it is (no judgements on that), but rather how many people they can get to buy the game based on the strength of its name and the reviews/adverts.

Well advertising certainly helps sales, as do good reviews, but how good a game is... more importantly (and why MOO3 has been going through design revisions/tuning) how FUN a game is makes the difference between ok sales and GREAT sales.

In this day and age, information and word of mouth spread like wildfire and a lousy game won't make its ROI through ads alone.

do we care? absolutely. Do we want this to be 'just another game?' no. But rule one in game creation, in actually putting the thing together, is how FUN is it?

Ideas are a great thing, but if it's not FUN, if it doesn't add to the game, and simply detracts from it, well then it's a product suffering featuritis. Features for the sake of having features, not because they are any good.

Hopefully, come Q3, you'll feel that we've taken the right path.

[TCO]

game score match

[strategy]

Yes - Civ2 I'd have happily paid $100 for (at least until they destroyed the AI with their patching). But for every Civ 2 game that is released, there are thousands of crappy products being released. Why should one pay $50 for 12 hrs of frustration, and then have to pay another $30 just to get it to work in a semi-sensible manner?

[TCO]

How many hours of fun will you have after the 30 addition?

Do the total math: 80 bucks for 100 hours is not that bad. 80 cents an hour. For example.

If you are really worried about games being buggy, etc. and about wasting your money, wait for reiviews.

[DanS]

To be a nit, Civ 3 only cost $40, IIRC. Even with one expansion pack costing $25 or whatever, that's $65 total, not $80 total. $65 is more in the "customary price" range.

In another thread, it was brought up that the Civ3 package could be viewed as an introduction to the expansion packs. This would seem to support IG's pricing scheme, although not the product in the box. If you're taking this view, then it makes sense to have a very stable, fun game at square one, even if a little light on features.

From a management perspective, I would use the expansion packs to build out some of the artwork, sound and story. I count 13 artists/animators on the Firaxis team (out of 32 total). That's a lot of people to be on the clock at the early stage of any project.

QS seems to have had a lot of the artwork done, with gameplay and programming trailing behind (I would be happy to be corrected on this point). Perhaps I would have led with developing these features rather than the artwork.

[madmario]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Why is everyone so down and expecting the worst? None of you (or I) have even PLAYED a demo, much less the full game, so how can you say the game "sucks" (to paraphrase almost EVERYONE) without having every even SEEN it???

Um. I don't think the game sucks -- I don't know what it will be, but I am cynical and suspicious.

Part of this certainly has nothing to do with QS per se. I was very dissapointed by CTP2 and CIV3. This certainly affects my perceptions. QS is of course its own company, but is this a trend in the hobby? There have been a number of dissapointments lately for me. Is this a trend from certain publishers?

I am also cynical because of the kind of language used around the game. There are a lot of spaces in between the lines of what has been said officially about the game. Certainly, the game is being reworked and isn't ready for play, so of course there can't be too many specifics. Still, I am wondering how the game will be significantly new or different. The games I return to are getting older and older -- I haven't discovered a "classic" in a while.

I am also suspicious because of some of the things that have happened around the company lately. Not just some necessary personell decisions, but of course those factor in too. Who can talk, who can't, some of the forum moderator treatment, all this looks, well, suspicious.

And for the record, while you toss around ad hominems, yes I do have a regular freaking life. I post here occasionally since I enjoy the way this forum is separate from say, a "house organ" (as someone else put it). What the heck is up with posting for people to stop posting anyways?

I don't think the game is the second freaking coming. But I do like games and like talking about things I like.


-mario

[moomin]

Originally posted by madmario
The games I return to are getting older and older -- I haven't discovered a "classic" in a while.

Yup. I've noticed this worrying trend as well. It's not nostalgia either - when I boot up an occasional game of MoM, MoO or X-COM they still rock.

[strategy]

Originally posted by GP
How many hours of fun will you have after the 30 addition?

Probably zip. By the time the addition comes out, I've usually long since shelved the game and gone on to other things. I already know the best strategies to defeat the game. And I've never yet seen an update change a game so much that one couldn't use the "old" strategies (or a slightly modified version) to defeat the game+addon. So essentially, all one ends up playing for is a few new units, new graphics, and possibly a multi-player add-on which is useless because all one's friends have also long since shelved the game (playing a bit of devil's advocate here ).

Just to be clear on one thing; I don't think MOO3 will suck (at least I hope it won't). I will most likely buy the game within a short while of it coming out (assuming the reviews are not too worrying), simply because I like many of the concepts in the game.

Another thing that you may have mistaken: I actually think the Civ3 addon might be worth the money they'll be charging for it. It certainly sounds like it will include some interesting changes/additions. But then again, I've not bought Civ3 yet, and probably won't buy it until they release a combined game pack at regular price.

Do the total math: 80 bucks for 100 hours is not that bad. 80 cents an hour. For example.

Sorry - can't recall when I've last had 100 hrs of enjoyment out of a game. EU was actually not bad, but most of the time ended up being spent arguing with the developers on ways for them to fix the AI and some of the game algorithms (which did succeed in making the game better, IMO, but why the heck should it be required?)

Civ 2 maybe? MoO and Civ, certainly. X-Com - also, though I only ever finished one game. Gold Juno Sword in the V4V series. I'm not sure I can count many more strategy games that have been anywhere close to a 100hrs worth to me personally. YMMV.

If you are really worried about games being buggy, etc. and about wasting your money, wait for reiviews.

Nah - I prefer to make my own. That way I know what I get.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by madmario



Um. I don't think the game sucks -- I don't know what it will be, but I am cynical and suspicious.

You may want to look into that, since not believing everything you hear isn't usually bad, being overly wary might mean you have issues with something other than games.

Part of this certainly has nothing to do with QS per se. I was very dissapointed by CTP2 and CIV3. This certainly affects my perceptions. QS is of course its own company, but is this a trend in the hobby? There have been a number of dissapointments lately for me. Is this a trend from certain publishers?

Well I agree, I was also disappointed with CTP2, and initially with Civ3, until I played it more and grew to see some of the smaller features they put in the game that radically alter how it works from Civ2 (which is a GOOD thing to me since IMHO, Civ2 was Civ1 with better graphics and I had played Civ1 to death years before).

Hrm, you're disappointed by two games and wonder if this is a trend? Do you buy very many games a year? Do you usually take the stance of "these two products didn't live up to my expectations so I think the whole billion dollar industry is going to hell" very often? lol!

You might want to either i) not place all of your hopes/dreams/fantasies in a game unless you develop it yourself, to be sure it has EVERYTHING you want, or ii) take the game as it truly *is* and then judge if it's worth the price or not and stop holding what was actually published up to some arbitrary standard you have that the publishers may not have even considered in how they wanted to make a game, any game.

I am also cynical because of the kind of language used around the game. There are a lot of spaces in between the lines of what has been said officially about the game. Certainly, the game is being reworked and isn't ready for play, so of course there can't be too many specifics. Still, I am wondering how the game will be significantly new or different. The games I return to are getting older and older -- I haven't discovered a "classic" in a while.

Be sure you aren't placing your own perceptions about the game in the place of facts about the game. As has been said in the past NO OTHER developer has ever allowed the public to be this involved or to know this much about how designing a game works, and QS has said they won't do this again, mainly (in my view) because of how the public blasts them without having any real facts in what is going on other than vague second and third person acounts.

Hmm, you complain that the game won't be new or different, yet that's exactly what happened with Civ3 compared to Civ2 and you said you were disappointed? What are you wanting to be new and different? Obviously want new and different only if it doesn't compromise the "core issues" of the game, yet if they keep the core the same you'd not get anything new except graphics and fluff. If you only get graphics and fluff as new, then of course you'd complain the game hasn't changed. Catch-22 situation IMHO.

One of the problems with human nature is we tend to glamourize the old familiar things we like, even if they are worse than something new, because of perceptions we have, not necessarily because something way back when was better.

I am also suspicious because of some of the things that have happened around the company lately. Not just some necessary personell decisions, but of course those factor in too. Who can talk, who can't, some of the forum moderator treatment, all this looks, well, suspicious.

This is the case of internal policies that aren't internal anymore. In my job peple used to come up and ask me questions about some issue or another. I'd give a response and the next thing I knew I was "speaking" for my department, something which my manager didn't like much, so I was told to watch what I said to people. The same thing is happening here in my view. SOme people, who don't speak publically for the company, have taken liberty to say things they shouldn't, or when told to watch what they said, obviously didn't.

Just because people were told not to say anything doesn't mean anything bad is happening per se, just that a company or department has to have only ONE official speaker, to say what the company wants said, and this was not happening here, so steps were taken to rectify the situation. We may not like the situation, but it happens all the time, trust me, nothing suspicious about it.

And for the record, while you toss around ad hominems, yes I do have a regular freaking life. I post here occasionally since I enjoy the way this forum is separate from say, a "house organ" (as someone else put it). What the heck is up with posting for people to stop posting anyways?

Heh.. My post wasn't to get people to stop posting, but to stop acting as if they had all the facts and making blanket statements as if they were based in stone, when no one, outside QS knows what's really going on. Some people are way to fixated on how they think a *game* will make their life so much better and these are the folks who need to get a better hobby or stop obscessing quite so much.

I hope that explaination was better.

I don't think the game is the second freaking coming. But I do like games and like talking about things I like.

I like games as well, but I like to wait and see how games are once they've come out and been published because until that time anything can change in the design, and even after the game is out the design can change (Blizzard loves to do that to make up for their crappy play-testing ), but speculation on how some change will "ruin the game" without having it to playtest ourselves is too much "Chicken Little" syndrome IMHO. That's the point I was trying to make.

[TCO]

Originally posted by strategy


Probably zip. By the time the addition comes out, I've usually long since shelved the game and gone on to other things. I already know the best strategies to defeat the game. And I've never yet seen an update change a game so much that one couldn't use the "old" strategies (or a slightly modified version) to defeat the game+addon. So essentially, all one ends up playing for is a few new units, new graphics, and possibly a multi-player add-on which is useless because all one's friends have also long since shelved the game (playing a bit of devil's advocate here ).

Change your strategy than. Wait for the XP to come out, so you get a complete game. Wait for reviews, etc.

[madmario]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
...not believing everything you hear isn't usually bad, being overly wary might mean you have issues with something other than games.

Clearly you think I am being "overly wary." I do not.

Hrm, you're disappointed by two games and wonder if this is a trend? Do you buy very many games a year? Do you usually take the stance of "these two products didn't live up to my expectations so I think the whole billion dollar industry is going to hell" very often? lol!

No. I mentioned two games appropriate to this forum and that required little explanation. Of course there are other dissapointments! For instance, while I liked Black and White, I was very dissapoined by the support for the game -- months for a patch. It was produced by EA (you could ask Richard Garriot about EA dissapointments). SFC command II was a terrible dissapointment - hello dynaverse II? I also thought the later patches to simgolf screwed the gameplay -- although I never went back so maybe it was fixed. There are others. Furthermore, I am dissapointed by the number of poor games on the market that I don't buy. I only indicated two because I didn't want to list a bunch of off topic games.

You might want to either i) not place all of your hopes/dreams/fantasies in a game unless you develop it yourself, to be sure it has EVERYTHING you want, or ii) take the game as it truly *is* and then judge if it's worth the price or not and stop holding what was actually published up to some arbitrary standard you have that the publishers may not have even considered in how they wanted to make a game, any game.

Well, why don't we just close apolyton. Why bother talking about what we like and don't like? Why bother having a forum before a game comes out?

I have found at least one other person here who thinks the "classic" games are getting older and older. I am here to talk with people like him, not argue with you. I think that is a potentially interesting tidbit of conversation.

If I buy the game, I will play it and see if I like it. I like a variety of games, not just computer games either. I do take games on their own merit. I am a gamer! Tabletop gaming is basiacally game design for a closed audience.

We are just talking about what we have. My biggest issue with your post is that you make personal attacks instead of just adding to the discussion. This problem of course isn't isolated to you, but that is another topic.

Be sure you aren't placing your own perceptions about the game in the place of facts about the game.

At this point I know very few facts about the game. I know a few facts around the development of the game, and having read accounts around other games, I am skeptical.

Hmm, you complain that the game won't be new or different, yet that's exactly what happened with Civ3 compared to Civ2 and you said you were disappointed?

I didn't find the gameplay in CIV3 to be terribly different. There was culture, but culture is basically another weapon of expansion. Diplomacy was refined -- nice. But it was also primarily a tool of expansion. The game-play was very similar. ICS still was the way to go. Expand and do not invest in a handful -- invest as broadly as possible. Numbers. The various forms of winning boiled down to a similar formula with a little twist at the end. I felt that there were only a handful of effective ways to play the game -- maybe there were many subtle differences, but I didn't feel like it. Everything was about get bigger. There wasn't a way to come back from behind, certainly not for the computer. There was little incentive to not expand effectively and quickly.

There were other dissapointing elements to CIV 3 for me but that's a whole other thread.


A game that did not dissapoint me was EUII (I did not buy its predacessor, though). I fee there are a number of valid ways to play that game. It was also different from other games to be interesting and intriguing. Goals are different for a minor state, like Ragusa, than say England -- but I can have fun playing either of them. Now, that isn't to say I don't have any issues with the game -- I do!! I bring it up to point out I am not a misanthropist, err misgame-ist, err.. umm, impossible to please.

What are you wanting to be new and different?

If I knew the perfect answer to that question, then I wouldn't be buying games. I would be making them. But different might be different valid strategies vis-a-vis pervious games. Like, if you could play a perfectionist culture, and have it be as effective a an expansionist one. Or if you played a mercantile state. Or if you could comeback somehow. If the game was less, well, linear. Choices. Give and take. Hard choices. Nuance in those chioces. Micormanagement is a big deal too. It's a very hard balance to strike in terms of design, I am sure.

Obviously want new and different only if it doesn't compromise the "core issues" of the game, yet if they keep the core the same you'd not get anything new except graphics and fluff. If you only get graphics and fluff as new, then of course you'd complain the game hasn't changed. Catch-22 situation IMHO.

Maybe it is! There's a cool discussion thread! I don't know what "core" stuff is. I don't think about that -- I think in terms of "is it fun?" Something too similar won't be fun because it will be old. I've already been there, done that. I am not exploring something.

One of the problems with human nature is we tend to glamourize the old familiar things we like, even if they are worse than something new, because of perceptions we have, not necessarily because something way back when was better.

I don't know what is intrinsically human nature, but I know about the nostalgia you are talking about. Yeah sure.

Sure. That these "classic" games are getting older could simply be me suffering from nostalgia. Certainly. The industrty is changing though. It has changed a lot, and it is changing all the time. Are these linked? I think so. Look at how many bad games come out that I don't buy -- that I hope no one buys. How do they sell? Why do they sell? How do they make money?! However it is, it is different from how and why games sold in the past.

On a related note, how was it that CIV 3 was released missing a major gameplay element -- air superiority? Am I supposed to imagine that was simply a mistake? What would have happened if it was a new game from an unknown developer?

Something is going on there. Is this something affecting MOO3? Can it not? To what degree then? I am not sure. But I am skeptical and cynical as a result.

Just because people were told not to say anything doesn't mean anything bad is happening per se,

I agree that nothing is clearly wrong. But I would take issue with the idea that things are clearly not wrong either, especially with the fact that there have been a number of these incidents. Thus, skepticism, cynicism.

Some people are way to fixated on how they think a *game* will make their life so much better and these are the folks who need to get a better hobby or stop obscessing quite so much.

Yeah but we're here talking about games. That's the point of these forums. I don't care why people are here! I only care about their ideas. You also spoke in very broad terms about people on the thread. I find personal attacks to be weak in terms of ideas.

...speculation on how some change will "ruin the game" without having it to playtest ourselves is too much "Chicken Little" syndrome IMHO. That's the point I was trying to make.

Hey, I agree. I didn't say anything was ruined with certainty. I am skeptical and suspicious. I wish I was more suspicious about some games I bought, like the CIV3 special edition! And here we have the same publisher! Was that not a fast one they pulled on us? Am I supposed to forget that? IG might like me to.

I agree with some of yours sentiment, but personal attacks are just lame.

-m

[strategy]

Originally posted by GP
Change your strategy than. Wait for the XP to come out, so you get a complete game. Wait for reviews, etc.

Not an easy thing to do, but its what I'm doing right now with Civ3, wise from experience. It's also one reason why I haven't bought a new game for the past two years or so.

[TCO]

same here, strat.

Games aren't that great anyway. Get only the good ones and wait until they work...

[kziti kat]

I am about excited about the prospect of the release of MOO3 in 2002 (2003?) as I am about the prospect of visiting my dentist on May 29.

They have a good track record concerning releases though... If I remember correctly MOO2 came out 6 months after its initially published release date. With all the bickering, nitpicking, and dumbing down of the game I have lost interested if the game - period. I don't care if it EVER comes out!

[Stormhound]

Now there's an odd set of coincidences...are you getting fillings done on May 29th also, like I am?

[kziti kat]

No, just a checkup (but I do think one of my fillings will need to be replaced - blah)

I am serious about not looking forward to the release of MOO3. At one point I was truly excited about seeing the continuation of the MOO saga, but at this point I am just plain worn out from what I have seen happen to the game. If you knew how much I liked MOO 1 and 2, then you would realize the debth of my dispair. MOO2 is in the top 3 of my all-time favorite games. I'll wait and pick up MOO3 at the bargain bin if at all.


How's the job search situation going Hound?

How's the little lady?

kat out

[Stormhound]

The job search is going, but that's about all I can say for it. It's a lousy time to be an out-of-work mainframer in these parts.

Not all is bad, though.

The little lady is doing OK.

I got to see Ep2 last night, and seeing Yoda handle a light saber is worth the full price of admission.

Also, I'm starting a HackMaster campaign tonight, so I'll be getting my GMing fix once again.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by madmario


Clearly you think I am being "overly wary." I do not.

Could be, just as you think I am flaming people while I do not.

[/QUOTE] No. I mentioned two games appropriate to this forum and that required little explanation. Of course there are other dissapointments! For instance, while I liked Black and White, I was very dissapoined by the support for the game -- months for a patch. It was produced by EA (you could ask Richard Garriot about EA dissapointments). SFC command II was a terrible dissapointment - hello dynaverse II? I also thought the later patches to simgolf screwed the gameplay -- although I never went back so maybe it was fixed. There are others. Furthermore, I am dissapointed by the number of poor games on the market that I don't buy. I only indicated two because I didn't want to list a bunch of off topic games.[/QUOTE]

I agree, there are a lot of bad games out, but just because there are bad games does not mean this game, or any other will be poor. A =! C you know.

Well, why don't we just close apolyton. Why bother talking about what we like and don't like? Why bother having a forum before a game comes out?

You missed the point of my original post. Sure, talk about games all you ewant but too many people seem to fixate on ONLY the bad, or what they think will be bad, features. THis seems to be a common thread on these message boards. That was my point.

Anything else you think I said, well, that's not what I said or meant.

I have found at least one other person here who thinks the "classic" games are getting older and older. I am here to talk with people like him, not argue with you. I think that is a potentially interesting tidbit of conversation.

Surprise, I am not here to argue either, my original post (if you'd like to go back to check for yourself) was a general comment about why do people here seem to want to fixate on the suspected bad parts of the game, when no one outside the developers know anything about the game other than rumors and tidbits. Do I think the game is perfect, no, but I thought it might be refreshing to wait and see, and meant to make the point that if others took the same attitude they might be a little happier.

We are just talking about what we have. My biggest issue with your post is that you make personal attacks instead of just adding to the discussion. This problem of course isn't isolated to you, but that is another topic.

Hrm, when did I attack anyone? I made a general comment, and *you* responded to my general comment so I continued the discussion with you. If you found insult in my views on what you said then I apologize, but don't try to make this a finger-pointing exercise because I did not post to you or anyone initially, and you were the first to respond in a personal manner (i.e. directing your post to me directly) to begin with.

At this point I know very few facts about the game. I know a few facts around the development of the game, and having read accounts around other games, I am skeptical.

Fine, I am glad you have doubts, but just because you have doubts doesn't automatically make you right, the same as someone with no doubt, who thinks this will be the best game ever, is correct either. We don't know how the game will be yet so any claims either way are purely opinion.

I didn't find the gameplay in CIV3 to be terribly different. There was culture, but culture is basically another weapon of expansion. Diplomacy was refined -- nice. But it was also primarily a tool of expansion. The game-play was very similar. ICS still was the way to go. Expand and do not invest in a handful -- invest as broadly as possible. Numbers. The various forms of winning boiled down to a similar formula with a little twist at the end. I felt that there were only a handful of effective ways to play the game -- maybe there were many subtle differences, but I didn't feel like it. Everything was about get bigger. There wasn't a way to come back from behind, certainly not for the computer. There was little incentive to not expand effectively and quickly.

Well when you boil any "empire-building" game down to it's simplest form, essentially the key to all of them is to expand as quickly as possible. So in that case you are correct. However, to hard part is surviving until you get enough resources to beat the AI empires, this is the whole goal of Civ3, as with almost any empire building game.

Oh, and with Civ3 there is a way to come from behind, it's basically give the AI whatever they want until you can play catch-up and win. That's how people who beat Deity level without "abusing the system" play from what I have heard.

If you think there are only a few ways to win, well, have you ever played Civ with onyl 5 cities? With never building a culture producing building? With a modified civ that doesn't have huge bonuses?

There were other dissapointing elements to CIV 3 for me but that's a whole other thread.

Ah, well, sorry Civ3 was not what you wanted. A lot of people like it quite a bit, but with all things there will be some who like it and some who don't. I don' think that means it's not bad (judging by how well it's selling), just that some have diferent expectations (and usually howl the loudest when their expectations aren't met!)

A game that did not dissapoint me was EUII (I did not buy its predacessor, though). I fee there are a number of valid ways to play that game. It was also different from other games to be interesting and intriguing. Goals are different for a minor state, like Ragusa, than say England -- but I can have fun playing either of them. Now, that isn't to say I don't have any issues with the game -- I do!! I bring it up to point out I am not a misanthropist, err misgame-ist, err.. umm, impossible to please.

I don't think I ever implied you're impossible to please, just that as a gamer it helps if you know what your expectations are going in and sometimes give a game a chance when it's not what you expect but might be good anyway. Buying games are like watching movies, if you go in expecting to know exactly how everything will go, don't be surprised if it doesn't turn out how you thought and ae disappointed, but if you go in with no pre-concieved ideas you'll usually be less upset by however things go.

If I knew the perfect answer to that question, then I wouldn't be buying games. I would be making them. But different might be different valid strategies vis-a-vis pervious games. Like, if you could play a perfectionist culture, and have it be as effective a an expansionist one. Or if you played a mercantile state. Or if you could comeback somehow. If the game was less, well, linear. Choices. Give and take. Hard choices. Nuance in those chioces. Micormanagement is a big deal too. It's a very hard balance to strike in terms of design, I am sure.

Hmm, good points. Now imagine trying to make a product that over a million people will think has all these options and you'll see the daunting task of designing a game (or any mass produced product). Not that I am making excuses, but for example, I have heard so many people complain that all of the features in the editor aren't built into Civ3, whenthat's what the editor is there for, to allow all of those million people to customize the game to suit them. *shrug*

Sure. That these "classic" games are getting older could simply be me suffering from nostalgia. Certainly. The industrty is changing though. It has changed a lot, and it is changing all the time. Are these linked? I think so. Look at how many bad games come out that I don't buy -- that I hope no one buys. How do they sell? Why do they sell? How do they make money?! However it is, it is different from how and why games sold in the past.

Heh, no idea on who buys the bad games, casual gamers maybe? People with more "disposable" income? Parents buying for their self-centered (Me! Me!)) kids? Who knows. I do agree with you that games seem to have changed, much like Star Wars for example. Back when technology couldn't keep up there had to be a good story, now that technology is so wide-spread and easy to use there seems to be an over-abundance of "fluff" and eye-candy. Now if game manufacturers would give us an old fashioned well though out and written game with good eye-candy and controls, that would be fantastic.

On a related note, how was it that CIV 3 was released missing a major gameplay element -- air superiority? Am I supposed to imagine that was simply a mistake? What would have happened if it was a new game from an unknown developer?

Ah, it wasn't missing, it was there, just broken. Was one of the first things they fixed in the patch. You did stick around long enough to see that fixed I hope, otherwise, no wonder you were so upset with the game. And yes, that was a mistake, which was fixed. If it was "missing" then it would have been something missing from the design of the game, not included but not functioning, which is a bug. If it were a small developer, if they had released a patch that fixed it right away, then they'd still have a solid product, which is exactly what Firaxis did/has done.

Yeah but we're here talking about games. That's the point of these forums. I don't care why people are here! I only care about their ideas. You also spoke in very broad terms about people on the thread. I find personal attacks to be weak in terms of ideas.

And I find insinuations of wrong-doing just as lame, i.e. as explained above I didn't "personally attack" anyone. So people can't have an idea different than yours that isn't an attack?

I agree with some of yours sentiment, but personal attacks are just lame.

So is trying to minimalize what someone says by claiming they made a personal attack.. *shrug*

[madmario]

Not much left here, but...

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Hrm, when did I attack anyone?

"Go out and get a hobby" suggests both "go out and get a life" and "you don't have a hobby here," both of which are personal attacks, not addressing ideas.

Otherwise, we generally agree -- although you made some blanket statements about responses in the thread I called you on, because I don't believe your chracaterization was just (certainly in my case).

Well when you boil any "empire-building" game down to it's simplest form, essentially the key to all of them is to expand as quickly as possible.

I had hoped it would not be the case in MOO3, based on a variety of earlier design ideas (HFOG, IFP, other elements). Whether or not that will be different I will have to see. To give an example of something different, that is not always the case in EUII, but it is sometimes. EUII isnt a TBS, however, it is similar to one.

I feel like you are arguing that my issue is one with the genre of TBS. That may be the case. Maybe that's why TBS has generally waned in popularity.

Oh, and with Civ3 there is a way to come from behind,

not for the AI, and not generally. The winning human tends to stay that way. Once you break into "winning", the rest of the game is just dressing.

MP may be different (also of course a dissapointment, and something that was not handled with complete disclosure).

If you think there are only a few ways to win, well, have you ever played Civ with onyl 5 cities? With never building a culture producing building? With a modified civ that doesn't have huge bonuses?

of course artificial restrictions can make it more challenging. I can also play people in chess without my queen. Still, the gameplay isn't something terribly innovative complared to other iterations. Expand by building this, or expand by building that. Research is linear-- there are subtle differences, zig or zag, so there -is- some nuance, to be sure. Certainly the UI was vastly improved -- big kudos there. I can give the game to any semi-geek and expect them to have a good time.

IG also did some funky stuff with the SE box, to my dissapointment. And while your point about Air superiority being "fixed" later is plausible, I don't understand how the game was published with such a huge bug unless it was ignored for financial reasons -- and further why the mending took so long. I suspect it wasn't implemented as a feature -- a major feature. MOO3 has the same publisher. Once bitten--twice shy. I had well moved on by the time they fixed it. I might go back but I loaned my copy to a friend so he wouldn't feel pressured to buy it. That was about a month after the game was released. -shrug- Haven't asked for it since, nor felt the urge to.

And of course, CIV3 sells really well. I'm not sure what that means. It's not really a topic for this thread, although it may be related to the way those very "bad" games actually make money. I just used CIV3 as an example of an identifiable dissapointment, and one that people would understand easily. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about it. I wasn't trying to howl loudly (if you meant that). I used CIV3 as an example.


-mario

[tishco]

i'm looking forward to medieval total war more than moo3 at the moment, and gta 3