my thoughts about MoO3 for you to read

Bluekkis · March 3, 2003, 12:26

Been here for some time reading apolyton formus and official, read many complaints and praises, now I have MoO3 and have been playing it for a while, just thought to write some things that came to my mind while reading all those complaints.

First wrote this to be a reply to "a true second chance please..." thread but this grow a bit so I thought that own thread for this would be better =)

Sorry in advance if there is much typos or other errors, really just wrote what came to my mind...

Why to judge game in these days from impression gotten straight from the box? Years back game developers really couldn't repair their mistakes so first impression might have hold true then, but in these days games are released too often incompleate.. and I think this is mainly because games are getting more and more complicated so even for experienced beta-testers are having some hard time to sopt every bug in game.

Really, in MoO3 I see not just a game made to a mass market but a real child of it's own genre, child of a king of it's genre and ready to take the crown after initial difficulties...

What did people really wait from this, flawless peace of workmaship to be the only game to be played? Updated MoO2? Then you have really no clue about what a *NEW* game is all about...

Yea, older MoO's were great so why to change anything but graphics? -- think... would you like MoO series to be just like NHL series, updatelike "new" game every year -- MoO3 is and actual NEW game, a game that really brings something new to it's own genre, and in this case really is revolutionary... nothing like this has ever been made and it takes a bit time to get used to all chages.

Yes MoO3 came out a bit buggy side but in these days what game wouldn't have bugs after release? And with the comlpexity in MoO3, bugs are simply inevitable. If you can't live with bugs and wait for a patch(es) that would solve them all, you really shouldn't be buying any games after initial release. Sometimes you just have to live with them for some time and think like this:
- "this but will be repair anyway so why to bother, lets look this game bit more closely see what really makes this game exceptional"
Surely some bugs might make the game a bit hard to play, I really look forward for repaird AI and few additional tweaks, but still I see this game as a good now, and VERY good after few patches.... patience, my child...

Really... as far as I know, only blizzard makes almost perfect games with cinematic quality cutscenes and damn good looking graphs with always a nice original idea... but blizzard isn't a "gamehouse", it's a "miraclehouse" (often wonder that does their games really sell that well that they can develop a game for years without economic support, or does they actually have some hidden support?).... as sometimes it is time and money that dictates that what the game is in the end...

Does MoO style game really need cutting edge graphical quality, I say NO. Because in this genre it is more important that how game WORKS, not what does it LOOK like. Good looking game in this genre makes at least me make think that did developers have much money and time to do the game or is it missing something.

It is the sad truth that eaven good games are often too quickly senteced to death by some people and reviewers just because of it's "out of the box" troubles, and in this case that effect is boosted with the fact that this game is a bit hard to get in to...

Everyone can't get everything, there is no such thing as perfect game, as there is no such thing as perfect person... If we could make a perfect game, it would mean that we are just workers under hivemind, everyone thinking in the same way. But every one of us is different and like different things, we just have to look that what DO we like and what we DON'T like, and if we like at least most of the things in it, it is easy to ignore rest and just ENJOY playing.

I see MoO3 as a game that takes place in far imaginary future but is actually a real future of this genre, as thats where all few games in this genre are going, complexity and detail. MoO3 is a rarity in these days, a game not made for the masses but a game with an idea and really brings new things to this genre. If you don't like it... go for fps genre and stop complaining. this game isn't for everyone, even QS have said that.

Comments? All comments are apprisiated, good or bad

EDITS : just doing some proof reading

GhengisFarb™ · March 3, 2003, 12:37

I like to think that I at least try a game when I get it. I honestly couldn't play Civ 3 out of the box and with its bugs you literally COULDN'T play it. It crashed before you get to far into the game. But at least you had an idea of what was going on.

MOO3 is different. My wife came in after I had been playing it for about 3 hours and asked if I liked it.

I said I wasn't enjoying it yet. She asked if I was losing and that was the reason I wasn't enjoying it. I said I didn't know if I was losing because the game didn't explain anything.

At this point she made the comment, that it was a game and if I wasn't enjoying the time I was spending on it why was I investing more time into it.

I sat there and thought about what she said and realized that since I was indeed miserable that it probably wasn't worth the investment of my time.

Quite simply, I don't care if I lose the first game, or even the first 50 games. I would simply like to play the game. MOO3 isn't playing a game, its pressing buttons and clicking options with no idea what they do or if they affect anything.

That simply isn't worth my time.

I guess I will wait for Moo4 and hope it turns out to be a game.

Ianpolaris · March 3, 2003, 12:43

GhengisFarb,

You hit the proverbial nail on the head. If a game is fun, then you will want to win. That means that if (and usually the first time through it is when) you lose, you want to do better next time.....and you actually should have some insight into how you can (flawed or not).

That isn't true with Moo III. It is quite simple: If you don't enjoy the game out of the box (at least enough to care about losing), then the game isn't worth a second chance.

-Polaris

Bluekkis · March 3, 2003, 12:51

Yea, lack of documentation and tutorials have kept most players out of this game, and this is something that should be taken care of. Good is that QS is making revised manual to explain things a bit better, and there are already some tutorials, guides and mods that should help people to get in this game.

MoO3 just needs a bit different type of thinking than "start and play", you really need to understand how this game works and what are effects of what you do in it to enjoy MoO3, have to admit that I still don't fully understand everything in it and with the bit bad bugs in AI have taken most of my enjoyment out but I understand that these are taken care of and I just have to wait for some time to enjoy this game as a whole

as I said... patience, my child

EDIT : the evil god of typos

Ianpolaris · March 3, 2003, 13:20

Bluekkis,

That's just the thing though. You shouldn't have to have patience to play (and enjoy) a game. You might be aggravated of course, and it should definately take patience and practice to win, but if I have to be told "how to have fun" in a game (and there is a thread on the IG boards that does just that), then the game does not deserve a second chance, and does not merit patience of any kind. Such games are almost by definition bad games. Thus my verdict on Moo III is quite reasonable IMHO.

-Polaris

GhengisFarb™ · March 3, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluekkis
Good is that QS is making revised manual to explain things a bit better, and there are already some tutorials, guides and mods that should help people to get in this game.

Better manual to actually explain how to play the game.

Having to shuck out another $30 to buy the manual.

Bluekkis · March 3, 2003, 13:36

well, I am one of those that think that game needs to have more in it that what can be seen in the surface. No game shouldn't be mastered even in a month, I like to dwell in to see and judge every part the game myself...

Well it is a bit bad that complicated game like MoO3 needs to be studied as it keeps good deal of players out of it...

but as I said, everyone is different, some like to study a game fully, others prefers games that are easy to get in.

perhaps a good in game tutorial would have solved most problems MoO3 has with it's fans now, but when QS was running short on time, I can't really blame them for not making one...

Bluekkis · March 3, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Better manual to actually explain how to play the game.

Having to shuck out another $30 to buy the manual.

perhaps I should have added this to my post

...to be downloaded from MoO3 web site when it's ready

thats what ranz said in that big post found here and official forums (or were it somewhere els, can't remember =/ )

darcy · March 3, 2003, 13:47

Quote:

perhaps a good in game tutorial would have solved most problems MoO3 has with it's fans now, but when QS was running short on time, I can't really blame them for not making one...

Well, but who else would you blame? It was them who got lost in feature creep, it was them who failed to keep their schedule, and it was them who focussed on other things (*cough* holycrusadeagainstharvesterspoilers *cough*) instead of writing solid documentation.

Bluekkis · March 3, 2003, 14:52

well they were rushed by infogrames

note: not trying to revert this topic to "infogrames is evil" one... lets just keep in original post that I made and perhaps some of you would, who hadn't done so yet could post your own ideas about this game

Trystan · March 3, 2003, 17:50

Quote:

Originally posted by darcy
(*cough* holycrusadeagainstharvesterspoilers *cough*)

*cough*thatremindmeofinfestedterrans*cough*
Now I got that cough out of my system, on to a reply for the thread topic.

I liked the game when I first played it. I had patience with the interface even though it can be made ALOT cleaner. Didn't completely understand the Dev Plans at first but the planets were building ok.

I found the UI to be a hinderance and greatly influenced the learning curve of the game. It is not that big of deal right now since I remember where all the screens are, although after playing for 3 days I finally relized where you could look at the enemy's tech

. A few of the bugs/design features are annoying, like being able to only to see the planet names and to be able to open up the TF info box for the planet at max zoom in level.

The only real complaint I have with the game design is that they cloned MOO2 and added macromanagement tools. Using these tools, I am left with a detached feeling. The planets are my empire, yet I care nothing about them. Turning off the econ AI helped me greatly here, though if the interface were slightly changed, it wouldn't be so tedious.

Another thought I came up with today was that I think they missed their mark with what they were trying to do. The details are in the wrong place for a macromanagement game. My vision of this design would be to scrap planet management such as this (MOO2) and bring it up to system level. The planet details are nice, but if I am not suppose to micro them, what's the point? Why are my viceroys keep telling me that built a building on the planet? I'm not suppose to be focused on the planet level.

Please don't get me wrong here, I like what they did with the planets (though longer build queues would be great). It's just the concept I think they were going after (emperor level decisions) doesn't quite fit with planet management such as this.

The way I'm thinking about it, leave the viceroys building their DEA's and such, but give me more control over the build ques. Better feedback on the sliders, can't tell what color those short sliders are. Also, make it that if I click on the queue box (far right side) on the planet summary screen, have it take me to the econ tab at that planet instead of making me click again. It's only 1 click, but if you want to build military units on many planets, that 1 click in and 1 click out adds up.

SMIFFGIG · March 3, 2003, 19:18

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Quote:

I honestly couldn't play Civ 3 out of the box and with its bugs you literally COULDN'T play it

I literally cant play the game with all the patches and the addon, there crap

Anyway im really staryting to get an interest in the Master of Orion 3, but im abit puzzled (this is probably gunna sound really dumb and newbieish but i dont care) has it been released everywhere e.g. UK, US, Europe etc

Because i cant seem to see it in stores and aint seen much advertisement about it

can someone enlighten me please

P.S. How moddable is the game, the more moddable a game is the longer it lives (unlike Civ3 etc)

vmxa1 · March 3, 2003, 19:35

Check the thread about sales, I think people are posting the places that are not seeing yet or just got.
It is one of the TOP threads so you can find it.

Ianpolaris · March 4, 2003, 03:14

Darcy,

Yes, I think you have a good point. It seems like Moo III was the victim of what I call 'Feeping Creaturism' and that was why it was developed so slowly and so badly. If QS had been given more time, it would only have been worse (if possible) IMHO.

-Polaris

habadacus · March 4, 2003, 03:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluekkis
well they were rushed by infogrames

note: not trying to revert this topic to "infogrames is evil" one... lets just keep in original post that I made and perhaps some of you would, who hadn't done so yet could post your own ideas about this game

Dude, what are you saying? If you were a publisher and you were working with a company that was working on sequel game in a totally formula genre for you for 3 1/2 years, don't you think you'd want the damn thing out the door already? A 4X (5X if you count Xasperation) space strategy game is not ground breaking stuff. They had the elements for the formula, they had the licence to the series. I'm sorry, but writing a computer game, as complicated as it is, is not quantum physics. I would have rushed them too, and if the game failed, oh well, you gotta cut your losses at some point. I wonder how much of QS's time and budget went for the bink animations that would run choppy on Big Blue? Or writing the "back story". Harvesters? Pshaw. The only thing that got harvested was all of our money. The freaking AI doesn't even fight back!!!!!!! They could have fixed that in an afternoon between christmas and now. Infrgrames rushed them, indeed.

starfox · March 4, 2003, 04:42

I agree, 3 years and a half is plenty of time for such a game that requires no breaking through animation or graphisms. The key here was the concept and it's implementation. It shouldnt take so long.

Given more times I also agree that the game might have been worse, they might have added even more useless features.

Honestly I would have preffered a Moo 2.5 at 30 bux anytime, and I would pay big money for a MoM 1.5 (Master of Magic). None of the dos emulator I've tried work. A MoM 1.5 for 30 bux, that's the concept. And it shouldnt take that long for a paint job, maybe 6 months.