Uh-Oh Q1 03 - Page 2

Spaced Cowboy · August 8, 2002, 12:01

I agree about the fun factor. I thought that reach for the stars was going to be good and fun too. However, the demo showed me that it was not.

Hagbart · August 8, 2002, 17:45

It is more important that they make a good and FINISHED game.

vmxa1 · August 20, 2002, 14:14

For those who hope for third quarter or 4th qtr release, Avault posted 12/02/02 as the latest date, so it keeps slipping.

Hagbart · August 20, 2002, 15:54

That seems like a nice date. I can wait!

vmxa1 · August 20, 2002, 16:30

Yeah, I have plenty to play.

Straybow · August 21, 2002, 01:24

I think when a pre-order says it will be delayed until 1/1/03 they're really saying, "Muahahahaha! We've already got your money, so we'll sell the pre-Xmas copies to the ones who might spend their bucks elsewhere."

R4TS was "boooorrrriiinnnggg!" I couldn't even take the effort to uninstall the demo. I really hope QS hasn't run into that kind of problem because it will be nearly impossible to inject "fun" into MoO3 at this late date.

Grumbold · August 21, 2002, 06:45

Hehe in an effort to play something different I recently reinstalled R4TS. What a mistake that was. I'd forgotten just how tedious they'd managed to make one of my favourite game formats.

vmxa1 · August 21, 2002, 13:14

I tried the demo and did not care for it either. I was foolish enought to ignore that and buy it recently. I could not get into it at all. Too bad. I have not cared for games that present a tactical combat in which you have very little impact. I can live with poor auto combat such as in SE4 as long as you can manage it better.

Spaced Cowboy · August 21, 2002, 13:36

Well the scariest part of R4TS is how bad I thought that I wanted it to begin with. Sort of like now with MOO3

And now with all the possible delays, do we have another bust on our hands?

vmxa1 · August 21, 2002, 15:16

I can't say, but my first concern is we actually get it, then I will worry about how good it is.

August 21, 2002, 15:54

I would posit that two of the "early warning signs" of known, significant problems in the production version of the game (be they a lack of fun, ineffective AI, or whatever) will be 1) the absence of a beta test, and 2) the absence of a playable demo. Both of these, to me, would indicate a hesitancy on the part of the developer and/or publisher to allow problems to surface publically, thereby negatively impacting pre-orders and "early-adopter" sales.

Do you agree? Disagree? Other "early warning signs" to look out for?

vmxa1 · August 21, 2002, 16:21

I would submit that those points are indicitive of nothing. Some games have met both criteria and stunk and some met them and were good. It may be concerning, but not indicitive.

August 21, 2002, 16:40

vmxa1, all I said was that I considered them "early warning signs," not that they were conclusive or inerrant. Much like the early warning signs of a heart attack or certain cancers, they "raise a red flag" and prompt you to proceed with a little more caution and perhaps investigate a little more carefully.

Spaced Cowboy · August 21, 2002, 16:48

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I can't say, but my first concern is we actually get it, then I will worry about how good it is.

Oh I'm pretty certain that it will be published eventually, in some state of playability. Infro will start putting pressure on QS as time goes by, which BTW is.

vmxa1 · August 21, 2002, 17:09

DATarbell. and I agreed, it can be a concern.

August 22, 2002, 12:17

Quote:

Originally posted by DATarbell
I would posit that two of the "early warning signs" of known, significant problems in the production version of the game (be they a lack of fun, ineffective AI, or whatever) will be 1) the absence of a beta test, and 2) the absence of a playable demo.

Well, since the developers said at the beginning of the design process - 2 and half years ago - that there would be neither a Public Beta Program, nor a Demo. I guess you will just have to write this game off as a pipe dream.

Hagbart · August 22, 2002, 12:43

I think there is a big risk that Moo3 will disapoint alot of people.

August 22, 2002, 12:54

Well, the developers said a lot of things two and a half years ago that has changed since then.

If I was a developer--and I am--and I had a software release that had a very high visibility (kudos here to the QuickSilver developers for being as open and interactive as they have been!) and had attracted a high degree of concerns from its adoring, awaiting public (US

), then I would be looking for any and every PR opportunity that would enable me to emphatically underline all of the good things about my deliverable and, by doing so, boost sales.

While I recognize that a beta test (public or otherwise) and a demo were not planned, they both represent opportunities for the Developer and/or Publisher to generate significant, positive word-of-mouth, which they badly need to do! (To counteract a string of 'negatives': cut lists, repeated delays, the departure of Alan, et cetera.)

vmxa1 · August 22, 2002, 13:25

They could come to this board and select a few of the die hards here to do some outside testing and there by keep strong control of it. Announce the selection here and calm fears.

Spaced Cowboy · August 22, 2002, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
They could come to this board and select a few of the die hards here to do some outside testing and there by keep strong control of it. Announce the selection here and calm fears.

Although that would be great for the game, it would be more likey that they'll hire testers to play it since that is the norm.

vmxa1 · August 22, 2002, 16:21

I was speculating that the reason they do not want to use beta test is the fear that some of the people involved would leak or give away things, that they would not have control in spite of non disclosure. I bet that some people here would be more reliable in that vein as they love the game and do not want it to fail. Maybe not.

David Floyd · August 27, 2002, 03:45

www.gonegold.com lists MOO3's release date as 9/25/02. One month from yesterday, if all goes well, although I bet it gets released MUCH later. Oh well.

vmxa1 · August 27, 2002, 04:03

Yeah, Rich is good about the dates, but not perfect. That is the long standing date from the the Publisher and Rich mention he was not confident. One can only hope it is right and the game is good.

Spaced Cowboy · August 27, 2002, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
www.gonegold.com lists MOO3's release date as 9/25/02. One month from yesterday, if all goes well, although I bet it gets released MUCH later. Oh well.

You'll also notice that they say that this is not likely.

They were also the source of the 1st post in this thread.

moomin · August 27, 2002, 11:15

Usenet rumor has it they're shooting for an X-mas release now. Personally, I would rather have it Q2 next year then next month. I don't think Moo3 will be a good game if it comes out in September.

But QS has to put food on their employee's tables too.

vmxa1 · August 27, 2002, 13:04

When Rich talked to them they would not change the stance that it is Sept......... OK we believe that.

Garth Vader · August 27, 2002, 13:24

I was speculating that the reason they do not want to use beta test is the fear that some of the people involved would leak or give away things, that they would not have control in spite of non disclosure. I bet that some people here would be more reliable in that vein as they love the game and do not want it to fail. Maybe not.

That's probably true, but it's a poor decision. For the cost of a game and the time to read my comments they could get 25-30 hours a week of play testing out of someone like me.

I am sure I and others here have played the Moo games far more than anyone involved in the project, and fresh eyes expierenced with the genre could only help improve the final product.

moomin · August 27, 2002, 14:10

Yup. I can't imagine RFTS(2) being so horrible had they actually had anyone - whoever - playtesting the game before release.

"Oh? You don't find random planetary wipeouts you can't defend again fun?"

Spaced Cowboy · August 27, 2002, 14:17

I tend to agree with you guys. The longer we have to wait for this one the better it just might be.

Secondly, the "in-house" beta testers will add nothing to the game besides finding a few obvious bugs.

I imagine, without some of the heavy hitters here having their hand, the game will be full of holes very soon.

vmxa1 · August 27, 2002, 15:25

Just look at the input they get/got from Civ players here. Too bad it was after the fact (of release).