Gamers.com "lackluster" report

Grumbold · August 29, 2002, 06:37

Looks like there's others out there that are not overly enthused. Perhaps this will make QS wake up, smell the coffee and start designing a space battle view that is going to impress the target audience.

moomin · August 29, 2002, 09:39

Link?

MarkG · August 29, 2002, 09:50

apparently not many people notice the news headlines drop-down menu at the top of ALL forum pages

vmxa1 · August 29, 2002, 11:54

MarkG, I had noticed it but forgot about. Thanks for the reminder, maybe now it will stick in my memory. Sad to see that info.

moomin · August 29, 2002, 15:00

Well, perhaps we'd be more prone to check these items out if they were related to the foras? Most of the time it's Civ3 info, and having given up on that game, I never look there...

Still, sad news indeed. Not that I'm surprised - we've already discussed how bad some of these shots are here. And the space battle grapics really need a serious rehaul.

Spaced Cowboy · August 29, 2002, 15:43

Now even my Dec 2002 guess looks bad

moomin · August 29, 2002, 15:57

Not to worry. Your guess is still golden by the only criterium that matters - number of expected sales.

CyberGnu · August 29, 2002, 17:57

Hey, are you guys actually asking for a remake of civ3: pretty graphics and no gameplay?

If I want a good game, I'd rather play the original MoO than civ3. If I want pretty graphics, I'd watch Final Fantasy'.

wervdon · August 29, 2002, 21:57

Personally I put very little stock into a review of a strategy game that almost writes the game off as a failure due to "out-dated" graphics.

I read the full review though and they also worried about too much ai automation, but I dont see how that can be a big deal now that IFP's are gone and you can turn automation off

Course, if the ai stinking is what makes you want to turn automation off, thats a bad thing since its presumably the same ai you compete against

All in all though, that "review" told me nothing I didnt already know from watching the combat video and reading this forum and the official ones.

Course, if I bought games based on 3d graphics, id probally be turned off too

But really, the only review ill care about is the ones posted here at poly the day after release

Skanky Burns · August 30, 2002, 03:55

Quote:

But really, the only review ill care about is the ones posted here at poly the day after release

Wise words indeed.

Grumbold · August 30, 2002, 05:49

Wait longer than a day. More like a month for the accurate reports to arrive....

Having trawled the official forum it seems that people think Gamers.com got to see a very alpha build of the game and that many of the points they raise were already identified and are being tackled.

Not having pretty graphics is not in itself a positive thing. Trading graphical quality for fun and playability is fine but if it looks like a spreadsheet, plays like a spreadsheet and has dire graphics throughout then everyone loses. Just look at Reach for the Stars

Having good battle graphics won't turn a junk game into a great game, but if the adrenalin moments are where you are staring at your fleet, willing it to win and hoping you got your formation and strategy right, it helps if you are pleased by what you see. Perhaps more importantly, if the superficial graphics get the game reviewers to mark it up and bigger sales result then there is far more chance for long term support. I don't want to see another potentially great game get written off because of poor sales like CtP2.

Spaced Cowboy · August 30, 2002, 08:47

I could care less if the graphics were about as exiting as a VB script in excel. I want the game to be fun and challenging. The interface needs to be intuative as well.

Graphics and sound are just window dressing. I've played too many games recently that look and sound great...but suck!

Zealot · August 30, 2002, 09:32

The problem is that is the graphics continue this ugly (I HATED the battle graphics) where will I find the patience to go deep into the game in order to really enjoy it? I would never go sp deeply into MoO 2 as I did if it hadn't such great graphics at the time.

Besides, since QS fired all designers and some programmers, and "only" left artits, I expect a lot of eye candy!

Spaced Cowboy · August 30, 2002, 09:44

Yeah, but my point is:

Given a choice, would you prefer:

Lousy graphics and sound with killer ai, interface, and playability (fun)

or....

Killer graphics and sound with so-so ai, clunky interface, and really not that much fun to play aka RFTS2

???

Grumbold · August 30, 2002, 09:54

I'm sure there are a hundred good posts we could track down and copy out of the Civ III forum that would slot right in here. The gameplay isn't going to get worse because the graphics improve. An artist can't possibly do much to improve the AI and a programmer is unlikely to be able to do quality art. The quality of the art will impact on he volume of sales though, which is why nobody writes any games in EGA any more.

RPM, I'm sure you didn't really mean to say that Reach fro the Stars had killer graphics. They were just as lacklustre as the gameplay.

Zealot · August 30, 2002, 10:54

RPM in today's market I expect the best in every aspect. That was what Moo2 was. The best in graphics, the best in sound, the best in gameplay, the best in replayability (IMO, as of today) and one of the first games (if not the first) to include hotseat! Now this was all in 1996! Do you think I'll tolerate or expect less than the previous game? You betcha I won't! I'll stick with Moo2 MP if things aren't improved!

Anyway, I'm still having high hopes... well maybe except for the combat part.

Urban Ranger · August 30, 2002, 13:32

Looks like the naysayers will have a field day.

Okay, I'll start.

Straybow · August 30, 2002, 18:48

MOO2 combat graphics were great? Cheesy Sean Connery look-alike was great graphics? News to me. Cheesy Civ2 animated heralds were better than that. Maybe you just can't get the blue-skinned babe out of your head…

Urban Ranger · August 31, 2002, 00:12

They weren't bad, considering how old they were.

moomin · August 31, 2002, 06:06

Moo2 graphics were adequate, given their time period. Moo2 sound was excellent, though. If we ever get shield tech, that what it's gonne sound like.

And the problem isn't the graphics. The problem is that the grapics seem really lousy on top of all the problems that we already know of with the development of this game.

Once bitten, after all...

vmxa1 · August 31, 2002, 12:35

I appreciate grahpics, but they are not high on my list, after all I still play Moo and other games with what is now horrible grahpics.

CyberGnu · September 2, 2002, 20:34

Yeah, played MoO just the other day. The graphics lets you see what things are, and that is all that matters.

Grumbold, you are right that good graphics does not a bad game make, but only if there are unlimited resources. I'd rather they spend the money they have on gameplay than flashier graphics...

moomin · September 3, 2002, 05:38

Gnu, prod values do matter. Even for nutty hard-core gamers like us. Why? Beacuse the game sells better. Which means there's a much bigger chance seeing patches and expansions. A game like Moo with very limited public brand recognition had better look good or only the nutters hanging in this group and a couple of other deluded cases like us are gonna buy it.

, I think.

Straybow · September 3, 2002, 10:56

Someone mentioned that MoO2 sales totaled about 250k copies when the decision to make MoO3 was made, and that for a major title it takes up to 100k copies to break even (depending on patches and support level). All the rest is gravy for the producers and developers.

There have been many games that "flopped" in the market, yet still sold enough to break even because the US/Euro/Japan market is so big. 5-10k copies/mo over many months won't make a blip in the sales charts. A game like SE IV or Stars! SG (once they find a publisher) could break even at 20,000 copies and make the developers rich at 100k.

All the time and money going into reworking the game is coming out of QS' share of the gravy, and should they sell 150k copies they won't complain a bit. We'll see plenty of support and all the bean-counters will be happy.

The real question is making the sales charts and length of time it takes to break even. The nutters alone will make the latter, but not the former.

wervdon · September 3, 2002, 11:31

Quote:

Wait longer than a day. More like a month for the accurate reports to arrive

Ack a month would kill me :P Ill do good to wait 2 days honestly :P

Quote:

Trading graphical quality for fun and playability is fine but if it looks like a spreadsheet, plays like a spreadsheet and has dire graphics throughout then everyone loses

I agree with that, but from what ive seen so far, MOO3's graphics aren't going to be bad enough to pull the game down. They just aren't going to impress people like gamers.com

Quote:

Having good battle graphics won't turn a junk game into a great game

Most definately, but what you said next about it translating into better sales is almost definately true. But personally, I can say without a doubt it will not effect if I will buy moo3 or not. Honestly, I considered that review more of a reflection on gamers.com than moo3, enough of one to realize their vision of a good game and mine are totally incompatible.

loinburger · September 4, 2002, 14:05

I never minded MoO2's graphics, and don't particularly care of MoO3 has stellar graphics or not. All I want is a fun game, which mostly translates into "good AI and good design," with "good graphics" as gravy and nothing more. Heck, look at the games Betrayal at Krondor and Return to Krondor--Betrayal's graphics were much worse than Return's, but Betrayal was far better.

Skeeve · September 10, 2002, 12:41

I'll admit that the preview at gamers has me worried enough to wait for the opinions to come out on this forum before buying.

Before that preview, I was almost ready to pre-order my copy, having been a die-hard fan since MOO.1.

At any rate, I'm hoping Civ3's Play the World will be enough to keep me going, and from that preview, it looks like it will. (I'd probably buy it if the only addition were the Radar towers and Outposts!)

-Skeeve

Spaced Cowboy · September 10, 2002, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger
I never minded MoO2's graphics, and don't particularly care of MoO3 has stellar graphics or not. All I want is a fun game, which mostly translates into "good AI and good design," with "good graphics" as gravy and nothing more. Heck, look at the games Betrayal at Krondor and Return to Krondor--Betrayal's graphics were much worse than Return's, but Betrayal was far better.

Good job, that is what I was trying to say.

Graphics and sound are nice add-ons, but I'd not trade them for fun, good ai, and a good interface.

moomin · September 10, 2002, 16:02

Unless, of course, you want patches and expansions.