Rate MoO3 (1-10)

GhengisFarb™ · March 4, 2003, 16:30

This is not meant to be a spamming thread but to get an idea of how the Apolyton MoO players feel the MoO3 game rates.

Choose 1-10 with 10 being the perfect game and 1 being a load of crud.

Feel free to post an explanation of why you chose your ratings and what changes/improvements to the game would affect your opinion.

I figure with all the different reviews out there the one that really counts in the one by us the players. So this is an attempt to quantify our opinions.

Craig P. · March 4, 2003, 16:49

Six now (fun as a builder, but issues within and outside of that). If most of the known issues are fixed in a patch, it goes up to eight or nine.

Harry Seldon · March 4, 2003, 16:52

This game needs to be patched. If QS is lurking, find the threads about it on this site. Seven is a generous score from me because I believe the game will be better after a good patch.

ashbery · March 4, 2003, 16:55

This game has geat promise if QS can make the A.I attack with fleets and groundTroops because its broke ATM.

GhengisFarb™ · March 4, 2003, 17:02

I'm giving it a four. It reinforces a trend in the computer gaming industry that I do not like at all. In the past you could buy a sequel to a game that you loved knowing full well that you would love that sequel because it would simply be a refinement of the previous version.

Both Civ3 and MoO3 have destroyed that assumption.

If Civ3 had taken the new elements (culture flipping, resources and luxury aquistion, etc) and kept all of the elements from the previous Civ games it would have been a perfect 10. Heck, add limits to the resources, such that only three cities can produce from a single Iron resource, thereby forcing the player to aquire 4-6 Iron resources if they want to pump out tanks in a multitude of cities and you've got a great basis for Civ4.

Likewise, if MoO3 had been MoO2 with the addition of Magnate Civs it would have scored a perfect 10 in my book.

OMG, Magnate civs are one of the best ideas yet, I can have all these vassal races out colonizing worlds I can't utilize and building up my empire. Its great. But it doesn't overcome the fact that they regulated research, espionage, and most of the other game elements to observer only status.

If I wanted to play The Sims in Space I would've bought a Sims game. I want a strategy game where I KICK the enemies but, where MY SHIPS swarm from my planets and I CONTROL my empire, not the computer playing along some preprogrammed algorithim.

Anyway, that's simply my review.

It's an okay game, but by no means worthy of the formerly illustrious "Master of Orion" license.

darcy · March 4, 2003, 17:05

I voted 4.

First of all, I don't vote for promises. Even if a major miracle of a patch catapults the game to 10 later, it is a 4 now.

The worst problem is the complete lack of documentation. If all the features were documented, I could at least decide how good they are. Currently the game is completely opaque. I fiddle around with it as I would with a SimCity game. Funny for a bit, but not what I expect from a TBS.

The next problem is lack of immersion. All the elements that connect you with your empire are gone. You see no scientists who inform you of great new discoveries and no little soldiers who fight and die for you. I never get a feeling of accomplishment and success.

But it's not a total failure. There a lots of cool ideas that deserve further inspection and better execution, like real-time task force based combat or "independent" colonists that migrate with a will of their own and have an opinion about the state of war with other empires.

And a final note: Please don't use "shareware" as a synonym for "crappy game". Shareware refers only to the distribution model, not the quality of a game. Many shareware titles are superior to their retail counterparts.

GhengisFarb™ · March 4, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by darcy
And a final note: Please don't use "shareware" as a synonym for "crappy game". Shareware refers only to the distribution model, not the quality of a game. Many shareware titles are superior to their retail counterparts.

I didn't use the term Shareware as to refer to garbage, I used Shareware to insinuate they didn't do anything that warranted people paying for it.

A lot of Shareware stuff is actually worth spending money on, while a lot of stuff people charge for should have been given away for free.

darcy · March 4, 2003, 17:15

This might be a misunderstanding here. Shareware is not freeware, shareware means you get to try the software (usually a crippled version) before deciding if you want to buy and keep it.

That said, MoO3 should have been shareware, i.e. it should have had a demo version. It's only fair to test something before you pay for it.

MarkG · March 4, 2003, 19:06

i guess you didnt see this GF

http://apolyton.net/dir/index.php?id...its=3975&cat=3

GhengisFarb™ · March 4, 2003, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
i guess you didnt see this GF

http://apolyton.net/dir/index.php?id...its=3975&cat=3

Nope, my bad. But I honestly rarely leave the forums/chatroom area.

Arnelos · March 4, 2003, 20:03

I give it an 8. My own "reviewish" post is elsewhere on this forum. I'll have to compose more material and post it.

This game is not perfect... there are MANY flaws, but most games these days have that many flaws out-of-the-box. This game overcomes those flaws with such an awesome game that I just don't care.

I think part of the issue here is that this game extremely hit-or-miss with people. Either you love it or you hate it and that seems to be largely inspired by your style of play and what you enjoy.

The principle quality that seems to more frequently divide those who love it from those who hate it is patience. Both in terms of overcoming the learning curve (accurately described as a "learning cliff") and in terms of enjoying the gameplay. If you have some patience to spare and enjoy empire management as much as conquering the infadels, you may just love this game once you get into it. If you don't have the patience for the learning curve or the management style, you probably won't like the game.

So it's largely a matter of different people have different tastes.

My recommendation to some friends of mine who were initially in the "I hate this game" crowd was to have a little patience with it... seems to have worked like a charm. Several of them now can't put the game down and now think it's absolutely awesome. The conversion of Sillelak (a college friend of mine), who posted the "What went wrong?" thread here, is a telling example.

But I'll recognize that the argument by some that they don't want to have to work to like a game is entirely valid. It's just not their type of game, then.

MitchDev · March 4, 2003, 20:05

I gave it a 5, with 12+ hours in, and about 12-20 more before I have to return the game...

I can see the appeal of the game in general, but it is NOT a MoO-game, it's just a semi-turnbased, players decisions-don't-really-mean-much-'cause-you-get-so-little-feedback.

lostgunman · March 5, 2003, 19:30

Why god! WHY!

20+ hours playing now...and i feel totally left out of the game.

It can play itself? Why does it need me?

All the cool stuff is gone. (GNN, reports) And everything is a total pain in the butt to get to.

So far...unless there is a MASSIVE patch...I am taking my copy back to the store where I bought it. It just is not worth keeping.

I gave it a 3, because of the POSSIBILITY of a better game later on. Others wise...it would have been a total dud.

suggestions: Reports, give me back my GNN, simplify the menus, give us the ability to select real-time or turn-based combat.

Compliments: Graphics looked nice, extra races were cool...story was nice also.

Harry Seldon · March 5, 2003, 19:36

I don't understand why you aren't having much influence on the game, unless you're looking for micromanagement. I'm having pretty good success with the development plans. I usually turn the planetary AI off on a couple of worlds to facilitate fleet building more quickly. Except for those damn transports and armies of support units, I feel in control.

General Ludd · March 5, 2003, 19:45

I gave it a six.

I like that they tried something new, and I don't hate the game, but it just hasn't 'caught' me the same way other games have. I have a hard time geting into the game for some reason. But I've been in a bit of a funk the past few days, so maybe it's me... either way, I'm going to put it to the side for a while and come back to it with a fresh view, and hopefully a patch.

Speaking of which, although there are some things that really need patching, it was released in pretty good shape by today's standards.

aiin · March 5, 2003, 20:03

The game feels unfinished. Alot of features seem to be added on real late in development. Like the spies and some victory conditions.

Senate victory is pointless unless you start the game in the senate. Otherwise you either get lucky and get in or lose the game some hundred turn lader.

The stupid X victory feels tacked on since you don't get to pick which fleet to send. The AI seem to pick randomly from your reserver and sends them on their way.

Of course the lone surviver is just tedious to try to wipe out 8 races not to mention 16.

I give it a 6. Maybe the score will raise if the AI gets patched.

The Templar · March 5, 2003, 20:58

I gave the game a five. It's playable, even fun, but has several big flaws IMHO.

(1) The Quicksilver guys should hav eplayed MOO I more - that in my opinion was the best 4x space game ever (with MOO 2 a close second). I liked dealing with sliders controlling the whole system at a time. Why give us separate planets with separate regions? Why say that a mining region has this and that building when you don't build it - your viceroy does. Just give us the damn MOO I sliders and tell us how much each planet is producing. There is too much useless information here, and its a clickfest to get to anything.

(2) The above is a mere gripe, this complaint is about something that damn near kills the game - who the hell did the diplomacy and senate? No AI ever makes peace. Are the peace options even connected to anything else in the software? I haven't seen diplomacy this flawed since CTP 2. I had a Grendarl empire down to its last set of colonies in a single system, I've got 40+ worlds all well developed. THESE IDIOTS WON'T EVEN LET ME SURRENDER TO THEM! Much less sign a peace accord or even a cease fire.

(3) The senate blows. Period. Can't get in if I'm not there already; if I am there I can't get a bill passed unless someone else proposes it and I second it. Hey, Quicksilver guys - play SMAC. I should be able to at least bribe other races to vote my way. Again, this feels like a feature that isn't plugged in to the rest of the software.

In short MOO 3 should have kept its interface simple like MOO I (and maybe put more resources into the space battle graphics) and actually spent some time on diplomacy and senate programming. Fun game overall, but won't be on my hard drive in a few months (whereas Civ 3 has been there since it came out).

Eric S · March 5, 2003, 21:07

I abstained because I couldn't rate the AI seperately. The game is good except for the AI. Fix the AI, the PD bug, and a few other tweaks, and this could hit an 8. Get some SMAC-like behind-the-scenes diplomacy, and it could hit 9. Give us all that and military policies like the planetary policies (to emphasize/deempasize building certain military units), and it could hit 9.5.

Tuberski · March 5, 2003, 21:10

I originally gave it a 5. After playing some more I'm up to a 7. Could go up to a 9 or a 9.5 with previously mentioned fixes.

Especially some way to make contact with another civ.

I hate waiting for them to come calling. Or am I missing something?

ACK!

asleepathewheel · March 5, 2003, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
Especially some way to make contact with another civ.

I hate waiting for them to come calling. Or am I missing something?

ACK!

I think that you have a planet within a certain distance of their planet. not sure what distances are.

there are certain techs which increase the spceport jump something or other, whatever that means, perhaps that increaases the contact lenght? who knows

asleepathewheel · March 5, 2003, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
I gave the game a five. It's playable, even fun, but has several big flaws IMHO.

(1) The Quicksilver guys should hav eplayed MOO I more - that in my opinion was the best 4x space game ever (with MOO 2 a close second). I liked dealing with sliders controlling the whole system at a time. Why give us separate planets with separate regions? Why say that a mining region has this and that building when you don't build it - your viceroy does. Just give us the damn MOO I sliders and tell us how much each planet is producing. There is too much useless information here, and its a clickfest to get to anything.

The reason that you can see this is that you can go in and change stuff, micromanage it, if you want to. If you don't want to mess with it, you don't have to. This is a bit for the micros, a bit for the non-micros

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
(2) The above is a mere gripe, this complaint is about something that damn near kills the game - who the hell did the diplomacy and senate? No AI ever makes peace. Are the peace options even connected to anything else in the software? I haven't seen diplomacy this flawed since CTP 2. I had a Grendarl empire down to its last set of colonies in a single system, I've got 40+ worlds all well developed. THESE IDIOTS WON'T EVEN LET ME SURRENDER TO THEM! Much less sign a peace accord or even a cease fire.

This really depends on your race and your opponents race. If you are the ithkul, then of course you are going to be at war throughout the game. I get ceasefires and unconditional surrenders all the time aganst some enemies. some enemies i have to fight to the death.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
(3) The senate blows. Period. Can't get in if I'm not there already; if I am there I can't get a bill passed unless someone else proposes it and I second it. Hey, Quicksilver guys - play SMAC. I should be able to at least bribe other races to vote my way. Again, this feels like a feature that isn't plugged in to the rest of the software.

You can get it, but it takes a bit of work. You have to have a strong ally in the senate and someone who would second your entry. I've gotten it before. Though more often than not, i don't want to be in it. Takes some work, but is entirely possible.

Harry Seldon · March 5, 2003, 22:01

I've built a colony in the same system as another race and not been contacted. On the flip side, I've been contacted by a race I'm not even connected to in any way with star lanes and then had them mysteriously drop off right after my first communique. I don't think there's any set way to do it; it must be a randomly generated event that is influenced, but not controlled by, various galactic factors.

Ghostbear · March 5, 2003, 23:30

But the poll keeps bombing.

Anyway, my two biggest unforgivable gripes are:

Research - It simply makes no sense that you can't NOT research a project.

AI - Perhaps someday when I'm retired I'll have enough time to give MP a fair try, but right now, I don't. No AI, NO GAME!

I think it would make a good screen saver if someone could figure out how to make the computer push the NEXT TURN button.

GB

Tuberski · March 5, 2003, 23:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghostbear
But the poll keeps bombing.

Anyway, my two biggest unforgivable gripes are:

Research - It simply makes no sense that you can't NOT research a project.

GB

Why is it so hard to understand? If your scientists don't realize the applicationsa possibilities, then they won't persue them.

Hell, somebody, in real life, my have found the cure for
AIDS or cancer and just didn't notice.

Just because you, the player, know all the techs, doesn't mean your scientists should.

ACK!

Capt Dizle · March 5, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski

Why is it so hard to understand? If your scientists don't realize the applicationsa possibilities, then they won't persue them.

Hell, somebody, in real life, my have found the cure for
AIDS or cancer and just didn't notice.

Just because you, the player, know all the techs, doesn't mean your scientists should.

ACK!

Tubes, are you gonna be a Moo fan boy too?

Tuberski · March 6, 2003, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Tubes, are you gonna be a Moo fan boy too?

Why, are you a moo whiner? I would have thought you had enough of whining with Civ 3.

However, MOO 3 isn't nearly as broken as Civ 3 was at release.

ACK!

Killazer · March 6, 2003, 01:08

Interesting the avg. score for this poll is about 4.6 at this time -the same rating given to the game by the reader reviews at Gamespot.

Crostoneman · March 6, 2003, 02:19

I'll give this a seven for now, I truely enjoy the deepness of this game and I do believe the A.I. is good but hindered. The guys at QS were smart enough to make this a spreadsheet game so we could try to make the game to our own specification.

notyoueither · March 6, 2003, 02:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski

Why, are you a moo whiner? I would have thought you had enough of whining with Civ 3.

However, MOO 3 isn't nearly as broken as Civ 3 was at release.

ACK!

asleepathewheel · March 6, 2003, 02:47

I probably rate this at the gamespot 6.7, seems about right for me. Fun to play, more fun than the majority of games I've played, and more fun for me to play than its predecessor (heresy I know, and I loved MoO2).

Once the players get the AI to be at least somewhat agressive, it will probably rate a 7.5.

once its patched, pd and ai agression and some bugs, I will probably rate at 8-8.5 maybe higher.

What saves the game for me is the new viceroy. i love that I dont have to babysit obscure planets the whole game, which is what seems to happen in most other games I play. I can play with what i want to play with and have a sucessful game, albeit against a patsy ai.