Master of Orion 3 - What Went Wrong?

Silellak · February 27, 2003, 19:07

Hello all,

As a disclaimer, these are all just my opinions, and I am open to hearing other points of view regarding my ideas.

As a bit of background, I am a computer science graduate student at the University of Arizona, and a huge fan of both MOO1 and MOO2. This being said, I've followed MOO3 for awhile, even through all the recent bad reviews, convinced that anything Master of Orion based could not be that bad. It must just be that the reviewers weren't fans of that type of game. Today, after having read the entire manual and the ReadMe file, I fired up the game. It started out well enough. The intro was cool and set up the game well (although if you hadn't read the manual you'd probably be left scratching your head). All hyped up, ready to spend most of the day before class lost in a brand new Master of Orion universe, I started a new game.

Four hours later, I sat watching the uninstall program running, wondering what went wrong.

Now, I know many of you at this point are thinking "Well, he didn't give it a chance. The learning curve is usually 10 or 15 hours," In reply, I say "So what?". I do not pay 50 dollars for games in order to force myself to play them, hoping eventually that will magically become more fun. I have no problems playing a game for hours to get the hang of them, but it should at least be fun in the process. That's the point of the game, isn't it? Besides, I am firmly convinced that my two big problems with the game would not fade with time.

The first of these is the fact that the game just feels unprofessional. It seems to me like a bunch of people who did not know how to program or design software, but were fans of the first two games, got together and tried to throw as much together as possible. Having no experience with software design whatsoever, they apparently did not judge how much time adding each feature would take, and thus the game ended up as a mess. They've taken everything that was good and well designed about the interfaces of MOO1 and MOO2 and removed them. Instead, I now have to dig through 4 menus in order to access the build queue for a planet. In the past, it took 2. Why? Why did they make things more complicated? They broke two key rules: 1) if it ain't broke, don't fix it and more importantly 2) KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Playing a game should not give me a headache. Rather than follow the example of MOO2 (take the good parts of MOO1 and build upon them), they redid everything, but they redid it all badly. Take, for example, the diplomacy screen in MOO2 vs. MOO3. In MOO2, just from looking at the screen, you can see what treaties you have, what benefit you are receiving from them, how many spies you have in the empire, what those spies are doing, and the overall relationship between your empires. All of this on one screen. In MOO3, you have to click through various tabs and on each leader icon in order to see the same information. This is not an improvement, this is a de-evolution. Compare either MOO1 or MOO2's interface to MOO3's, and it's obvious which one is inferior. However, even all these flaws in presentation do not necessarrily mean the game is bad. While they make playing the game more of a chore, if it weren't for the second major problem, it could still be on par with MOO1 and MOO2. That problem is simple - the game has no soul.

I think the developers did not understand a lot of what made MOO1 and MOO2 great. It wasn't just the deep strategy and the amazing gameplay, it was the fact the game had a soul to it. It was the little things, like your researchers popping up and explaining what advances you've made. It was seeing your spies tell you what they stole. It was the fact that alien races told you why they were mad at you, not just that they were. It was watching your colony ship land on a planet and then naming it whatever you wanted to. It was controlling each of your ships in combat and doing everything you could to keep every little ship alive. For some reason, MOO3 felt the need to remove all that. Apparently what they meant by "Simulating an Empire" was "Drowning you in tons of information with no personal touches." Reading "Your researches have completed research on Biospheres" doesn't give the same feeling of accomplishment that someone coming up and telling you what they've created does. Reading what happened for a special event doesn't have the same impact or feel as being informed over GNN does. The game relies too much on its SitReps, and I think that it one of the game's key flaws. Maybe it's just my personal opinion, but it seems to me that without these things, it's not a Master of Orion game.

It's sad that this happened, really. Creating a sequel to MOO2 would not have been that hard. Take some of the good ideas from MOO3 (the plot, the harvesters, the increased role of the Orion senate), improve on some things of MOO2 (the micromanagement), add internet support, improve the graphics, and you have a grand game. Perhaps some people would have complained it was not a true sequel, but I think it would've been worth 50 dollars for those improvements.

For those of you that do enjoy MOO3, I envy you, I really do. I wish the game could have liven up to its predecessors, but in my mind, it failed. For those of you sticking with it, good luck, and I hope you find a trace of the soul of the series somewhere undernearth all the endless, bland, boring menus.

The Rusty Gamer · February 27, 2003, 19:13

Oh well Silellak, at least you have Galactic Civlizations to look forward to. Maybe that will turn out to be the game you thought MOO3 should be.

Craterus · February 27, 2003, 19:43

4 layers to get to the build queue's?

I don't suppose anyone can tell me why they can't put arrows there to scroll through the build queue's for each planet, can they?

Is there a summary page showing the build queues for each planet?

Can you access the build queue's from that single page as well as going through the 4 layer shenanagans?

vee4473 · February 27, 2003, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Silellak
I have no problems playing a game for hours to get the hang of them, but it should at least be fun in the process. That's the point of the game, isn't it? ... ...Playing a game should not give me a headache....

I am still on the fence about whether to buy the game, but these are 2 reasons that keep me there.

Reading about how some describe the game as you have tells me it isn't for me.

Certainly because I want a fun game, not endless menus and screens after I just spent all day at work with programs like SAP and Pro/E...I get enough of that at work.

But, I will continue to read what you guys have to say.

notyoueither · February 27, 2003, 20:10

Similar story from the Civ2 die hards re Civ 3.

The radical departures are not appreciated by many.

I take a slightly different view. I do not expect the game to be what I would do with it, I approach the game by trying to figure out what the developers intended for this installment.

I'm not sure if they have done a good job or not yet. I haven't got that far. I am missing a screen that shows me all planets and what they are building though.

Ray K · February 27, 2003, 20:34

Similar story from the Civ2 die hards re Civ 3.

Not true. I was a Civ/Civ2 diehard that loved Civ3.

I don't care if the look & feel changes as long as it doesn't detract from the FUN.

booje · February 27, 2003, 20:54

Hey Silellak I totally agree. I have many many years of playing both board and computer and I'm a software professional with a technical degree as well.

I loved Master of Magic, MOO1, MOO2 (not as well as MOO1 but pretty darn close) and I have to agree with the points you make about MOO3.

Now I've been getting flamed about "I need to do this" or "I need to do that" to make the MOO3 experience better. But, notwithstanding a learning curve, why should I adapt and bend over backwards (or forwards in this case) to learn to enjoy the game when I should just be having fun automatically.

I'm certainly not saying it's easy these days what with the production values of Medieval Total War or the true honest depth of Europa Universalis 2. I'm sure everyone involved had the very best of intentions but it just seems like they shot for moon and really missed.

So what was the VERY FIRST thing I did when I loaded MOO3 you may ask? I looked at the credits. Yes the credits, to pay a small homage to everyone involved. Great graphics and a great layout (though lifted entirely from Homeworld). Hey they even thanked MOO fans everywhere nearly at the top. But where Homeworld had a sweet soundtrack (I copied it just to listen to the track it was so good), MOO3 has a bland soundtrack and the credits simply end instead of a nice loopback.
Do I really care about music? A nice touch but if executed poorly it becomes a distraction. The point is that the credits seem to be a mirror of the whole game. Copied well, but not original and lacking soul.

What I care about is gameplay more than anything else
and Silellak is right when he says this game has no soul.

Where's the love?

Tuberski · February 27, 2003, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by booje
Now I've been getting flamed about "I need to do this" or "I need to do that" to make the MOO3 experience better. But, notwithstanding a learning curve, why should I adapt and bend over backwards (or forwards in this case) to learn to enjoy the game when I should just be having fun automatically.

I'm certainly not saying it's easy these days what with the production values of Medieval Total War or the true honest depth of Europa Universalis 2.

Honest depth of EU2? How so, it is an even worse waiting game than MOO3 is. The "learning curve" is steeper in EU2.

Why did you give EU2 a chance and not MOO3? Most likely, and this is a guess, it's because you hadn't played EU before.

I think everyones biggest problem is they don't want to go through the learning curve, they want it as easy as MOO2 was, and what's the point in that?

ACK!

The Templar · February 27, 2003, 21:20

MOO3 can be summed up in one word: confusing!

I'm still playing, hoping it will come together for me. Gives me something to do while waiting for GalCiv.

Silellak · February 27, 2003, 21:23

"I think everyones biggest problem is they don't want to go through the learning curve, they want it as easy as MOO2 was, and what's the point in that?"

It's not just the fact that there is a learning curve, it's the fact that:

1) it's ridiculously steep - more so than it should be, because of the horrible design flaws

2) Learning the game is not FUN. I'd have no trouble fighting the learning curve as long as I was enjoying myself doing it. I'm not. It's like Me vs. the Interfance instead of Me vs. Other Races

Tuberski · February 27, 2003, 21:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Silellak
"I think everyones biggest problem is they don't want to go through the learning curve, they want it as easy as MOO2 was, and what's the point in that?"

It's not just the fact that there is a learning curve, it's the fact that:

1) it's ridiculously steep - more so than it should be, because of the horrible design flaws

2) Learning the game is not FUN. I'd have no trouble fighting the learning curve as long as I was enjoying myself doing it. I'm not. It's like Me vs. the Interfance instead of Me vs. Other Races

Oh, I understand what you are saying on both points.

EU2 was much the same way with me. EU2 just couldn't hold my attention.

But, Having played the franchise since it's inception, I will fight the learning curve and hope the game gets fun. I like it so far, but I am confused on several things.

ACK!

kalbear · February 27, 2003, 21:40

The problem is that the interface obfuscates the fun. It's useful when you know what you're doing, and it's downright laughable how bad MoO2's is compared sometimes (aside from that damn build queue...grrr) but man oh man, does it fight you.

To think that it got dumbed down to this...gah.

Killazer · February 27, 2003, 21:51

Moo3 is indeed overly-complex. Much of the information and overhead that is in the game is simply not needed. I think it will turn off many casual players. Theres like 13 diff ship classes and like 5 types for each class and... good god develping new ships for all duties requires several dozen new designs lol. It's bloated thats for sure.

But... I still think it is good

I have one problem tho... wtf is wrong with the diplomacy ?? lol I have species calling me up tellin me what a backstabbing maniac I am and they will NEVER forgive me... like I killed all their newborn children or something lol but I was in a non-aggression treaty and piles of trade treaties with them for dozen turns. Also, I get a non-aggression and declaration of war offer in the same turn from the same civ O.o. Wars just seem to end magically and then they are re-declared... wierd stuff. the AI needs to tell u WHY they are upset... its just too vague right now and doesnt make sense most of the time.

Anyway... this game coulda used a lot more fat trimming lol. I cant imagine what it was before it was 'dumbed down'.. musta seriously been a spreadsheet linked to a RDBMS in space lol. I think many ppl arent gonna give this game enough time cuz they will just play it for a while and be like.. wtf.... and probably not play it anymore or return it. I enjoy it tho, Its a good game basically just a little cluttered with stuff u probably dont need to know

H Tower · February 27, 2003, 21:54

Moo3 isn't supposed to be a game you enjoy automatically, well not unless you like spread sheets i guess. Moo isn't a main stream market game, it's not for everyone, and QS has never tried to make it that way.

"Not true. I was a Civ/Civ2 diehard that loved Civ3."
One of the minority of civ/civ2 players who does. nye is right.

You people are talking about fighting the learning curve, learn to fight the impatience first, and maybe then you'll be able to figure things out.

kalbear · February 27, 2003, 22:02

The design doc for MoO3 declared it was to be an A+ title to sell 500K copies or more. That's a mainstream game if there ever was one.

Regardless of whether that was their intent, it sure as hell wasn't what they got. I can't imagine any casual gamers even remotely liking it.

Killazer · February 27, 2003, 22:16

I'm learning, but the learning curve isnt the problem. The game simply is unnecessarily complicated with information that is not needed. More is not always better, especially in math. Half of mathematics is simplifying equations so that the simplifications can be used in conjunction with other equations to solve a problem. But you dont go needlessly adding on variables to equations if they are not required. QS went about this game in the wrong direction. They should have expanded the Moo2 equation while maintaining simplified formulae/constructs that is moo2. Instead QS added on loads of variables unnecessarily and just turned the game into more work for the user. Instead of a complex, yet streamlined solution we get a complex and tremendously cluttered solution that we must unravel, or simplify, before we can even begin to enjoy the game. Most people will not bother to do that as good games are all about doing that for you, while you enjoy the experience. However, they still remain complex yet simplified (no thats not a contradiction not sure if u are following me here

).

ANYWAY, it's still a good game

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 22:24

Complex actually sounds good, but is it also interesting?

I mean it is a complex task getting out of bed, to the toilet, showering, putting on your clothes...

If you never did that, the learning curve is steep. Ask any three year old. But the question is: After having learned it, is it then still challenging? Is it fun? Or is it repetitive, boring, mundane tasks?

ACEofHeart · February 27, 2003, 22:24

I read one Thread that stated .. "I know I'll love MOO3, bring on those complex spreadsheets, cause I love number-crunching "
To me thats the essence of what seperates Gamers that want atmosphere and as you say "a soul" in the game from those who only see "Excel" on the screen and think winning is to just come up with the sum of all those digits..
I've played MOO3 for over 10 hours now and while I'm not going to trash it, it's just an unreasonably complex experience that's NOT fun. And please,,you can read all the manuals you want, it's still not going to make it fun.!

So while all you cosmic accountants enjoy it, I'll wait for GalCiv..

Killazer · February 27, 2003, 22:37

yer just not getting the point, programming games is all about keeping things simple even though they may be representing things that are complicated at a lower level, yet fun and engaging. The programmers just got carried away with the code and their ideas thats all it seems like. They missed some of the bigger picture and the fact that its just a game. I still like the game tho.

I personally like and enjoy the game, but I can easily understand where many people are coming from who simply got turned off by it.

slitherin · February 27, 2003, 22:41

They should have taken their cues from Space Empires - editable files, all access menu, production, orders, research, foreign relations, etc right on the top of the main screen! Does anyone at Quicksilver have real software gaming expertise? These countless tabs and menus are maddening!

slitherin · February 27, 2003, 22:44

BTW,

Hopefully, Galciv will kick MOO3's arse!

kalbear · February 27, 2003, 22:50

Well, so far for me, it's quite fun. Perhaps I had low expectations, or perhaps because I knew a lot about the game I knew how to deal with what I needed and what I didn't.

I'll not say that there aren't problems - there are problems a bushelload full. But they're mostly solvable problems. The AI does make good use of defensive structures that require massive force to crack, normally. Now, all they need do is make a lot of offensive ships and bring them en force. Fix diplomacy to be more informative and more logical. Or at least more understandable. Make build queues easier to access. Make the viceroy not emphasize troops so much. Change a few things here and there.

It's got a lot of potential, but more than that, it's a lot of fun as it stands. At least for me.

vmxa1 · February 27, 2003, 23:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray K
Similar story from the Civ2 die hards re Civ 3.

Not true. I was a Civ/Civ2 diehard that loved Civ3.

I don't care if the look & feel changes as long as it doesn't detract from the FUN.

Ray, it is quite true if you read and followed the Civ3 forum, it was replete with those complaints (not the same as civII).

Tuberski · February 27, 2003, 23:22

I was suprised that, in the very first game, the Sakkra's started assassinating my leaders very early, I was used to MOO 2 espionage where you have a little break.

ACK!

vmxa1 · February 27, 2003, 23:32

I have not played enough to make any conclusions, but I am starting to ask myself, what is there for me to actually contribute to the game? I mean I gives me so little data on things that I am not able to see any reason for me to manage anything.
I hate it when I am given a new tech and it just has a story, no facts. The tech reads like a astrology chart, so generic it does not let me know how useful it is, just that is very useful. Well exactly what does it do? Add 1.5 to this or that, reduce 2.4 on the other thing, I mean what does it do precisely.
Without this information, how can I determine if I should build item A after item B or C or which should be the priority.

Corentor · February 27, 2003, 23:32

MOO3 did not go wrong.

The ideas of what the game was going to be were executed fairly well.

Just because it is not to *your* tastes does not mean the game sucks.

Just as the fanboys were wrong in trying to question the negative review's point of view, it is wrong to say that the game bad or that the developers went astray simply because you do not agree with the vision of the developers on what MOO3 should be.

The game seems to be 99% bug free and with the exception of bad documentation, there is little fault you can find within the game.

slitherin · February 27, 2003, 23:51

You gotta be kidding me. The cluttered menu and the constant lcikcing to get to one view to another and back and forth are "no fault". Yes, the game is stable, but the interface and menus are cumbersome and very archaic.

Magus Flynn · February 28, 2003, 00:17

I'm into my 6th hour of gameplay....and while there are still a few questions about how certain things work together, for the most part I'm done the learning curve and am into the strategy curve now!

You see, it all depends on how you come to the game. I taught my wife to play Mo02 and it took a looooonnnngggg time for her to catch on to how the game really worked. She was watching over my shoulder this evening as I played and you know what she said? "That makes a lot more sense than the other Orion game {referring to the star lanes, senate, and tech tree in particular}."

I'm not saying that QS couldn't have done better with Mo03. I agree that there are things I still like better about Mo02. But is Mo03 an improvement on Mo02? YES! Is Mo03 a true sequel to the others? YES!

For those of you who wished you'd get a picture of the tech you built or stole, what for - that's just eye candy that doesn't add to the playability. INstead of a picture, I suggest that a military advisor/viceroy advise you how new discoveries fit into your fleet planning.

In the end, however, whether you like Mo03 or not is up to you. This is the first time I've been part of a game forum and I'm not sure I ever will again. You'd think by the griping that people's lives are at stake or something.

________________

Who died and made you the Guardian?

canamrock · February 28, 2003, 00:19

I have the game, and I like it. At first, playing as the Psilon, I was getting my butt kicked down on easy, and I was falling way behind. Now, after about 12 hours gametime, I am getting used to the controls, and am having a blast. I like the menu system, mainly because the planets don't move around any more. lol Also, I think the new system feels more governmenty than MOO2 did.

I loved MOO2, and was pulling my friends into it. I wasn't a fan of tactical combat in MOO2, and I appreciate the Star Trek TBS-like system for combat.

I got mindblasted when I realized the main galactic mapwas full 3D. It's fun to spin it around!

So far, I think that MOO3 could be a really good game, but I guess you just have to see past the controls. If you are an Axis & Allies or Diplomacy fan, you know what I mean.

Corentor · February 28, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by slitherin
You gotta be kidding me. The cluttered menu and the constant lcikcing to get to one view to another and back and forth are "no fault". Yes, the game is stable, but the interface and menus are cumbersome and very archaic.

I happen to like the UI.....I don't find it cumbersome at all.

Everything you need is 2 or 3 screens away at most. Which is good when there is so much information to present.