Surprisingly frank interview with Rantz/Cory

BucksRock · March 8, 2003, 20:42

Moo3 Post Mortem

Interesting quotes:

"It was overdesigned and the design was never fully completed... even a year after the design should have been done, it wasn't."

"Nelson said that one person needed to be in charge of the design vision, but no one ever took that lead"

This leaves me a bit confused. I was under the impression that before he got axed Alan was the lead designer and the "vision guy". May be a nice way of saying "he f'd it up" without coming right out and saying it.

ashbery · March 8, 2003, 21:08

This just sounds like there blaming negative reviews of alan ,but they cut huge chunks out of the design a year before release

Crostoneman · March 8, 2003, 21:08

Have you seen Alan's vision of this game? Before he got laid off, there a complex spy game, a complex simplanet game, a complex military game, etc. They had to cut out several features so it wouldn't be so overly complex that a redwood tree had to be cut down just to make one manual for each gamebox.

Ray K · March 8, 2003, 21:17

It sounds depressing enough to me to think there's only going to be a bare minimum patch and then they're going to abandon it.

It's happened before. CTP2, anyone?

vee4473 · March 8, 2003, 22:31

Wow,

that article seems to tell me that Rantz was lying when he hyped the game in this very forum prior to release.

Wasn't it he who said "it'll be worth the wait". maybe not, correct me if i'm wrong.

All the while knowing in his heart that it was frustrating and not done.

All though, in honesty, I can't blame him. I wouldn't bad mouth a project of mine prior to release either.

They needed 2 more years, the article says...

you would think they were inventing warp travel...

This very short article is an interesting insight into what they admit was a disorganized project.

aiin · March 8, 2003, 23:32

Too bad this didn't come earlier, could have saved alot of people pain.

It seem like QS took the position of do nothing and maybe everything will turn out fine.

asleepathewheel · March 9, 2003, 00:25

This article does reflect poorly on the developers.

Kind of like they got it to a "finished" point, ie no ctd bugs and released it, saying, hey thats good enough. Bully for them, won't buy another QS game in the future, unless it feels better. Hope they don't get MoM2

Interesting that Info would let them delay a few months, but shoved civ3 and ptw out the door.

ChaotikVisions · March 9, 2003, 01:10

Well, it was worth the wait, depending apon what your tastes are. Getting invovled in a game before its even out is just asking for trouble, but anyway..

Tells us pretty much what we already knew. Design got over-ambitious and too complicated, so they cut some things. Explains the various feedback problems, them dumbing down the AI is mentioned as well. Once thats patched, as well as the more feedback they said they're working on too it'll be even better. But I agree with the final statement, they made a good game in the end. I wonder how much better it would have been with the extra couple years though.

I'm still open to them doing MoM, though Firaxis is probably better since MoM had alot of Civ elements. Nice of them to speak out about what happened.

slitherin · March 9, 2003, 04:00

Reaffirms a lot of the negative comments here. CRAP

Vince278 · March 9, 2003, 04:45

I feel vindicated over every nasty comment I made. However, I have to admit though my first thought was to applaud their honesty.

Comrade Tribune · March 9, 2003, 05:29

Quote:

Originally posted by slitherin
Reaffirms a lot of the negative comments here. CRAP

I guess it´s about time for the magic four words:

*I TOLD YOU SO.*

peacenik · March 9, 2003, 10:55

The honest interview gives me hope that the patch will improve the AI and diplomacy, so anyone that can live with the interface and learning curve could find MOO3 very enjoyable. It is a lot like HOI, which is far better now (version 1.03b, with 1.04 on the way) than it was when it shipped, thanks in large part to the mod community. The modders have dramatically improved MOO3 in less than two weeks time, so we still have hope.

Asmodean · March 9, 2003, 14:50

I really don't see how anyone can read this interview and come out feeling vindicated about having posted negative comments. I read this interview as a commitment to the fans of the game. They are basically saying that the game has issues (but we already know that, so why the "I told you so attitude") and that they are working on fixing the issues. Most of the issues Rantz and Cory address here are already known:

No proper pre-production. Heard before.
Design to intricate. Code didn't feed-back properly. Heard before.
AI is broken beacuse adjustments were made but not tested. Heard before.

So guys. They're not admitting that they made a poor game (because they didn't). They admitting that the game could be better, and that they're comitted to making it better. So Comrade Tribune, slitherin et al. Get down from your hign horses. You do not look too good on them.

Asmodean

Harry Seldon · March 9, 2003, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray K
It sounds depressing enough to me to think there's only going to be a bare minimum patch and then they're going to abandon it.

It's happened before. CTP2, anyone?

Where did you see this? The only patch they mentioned was the AI patch and they said they're testing to make sure it fixes the problems in that module and that it's a worthwhile download. They never said once they're going to abandon it. You don't even own the game, do you, so why do you care even if what you said was true?

duodecimal · March 9, 2003, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
Where did you see this? The only patch they mentioned was the AI patch and they said they're testing to make sure it fixes the problems in that module and that it's a worthwhile download. They never said once they're going to abandon it. You don't even own the game, do you, so why do you care even if what you said was true?

Well, I own it, and a few people are waiting to hear from me, one in one group saying she would "appreciate knowing if the patches help, or if they're just going to dance around the issue and not fix the really annoying stuff".

I'm not making any predictions on what gets patched. It doesn't matter whether someone owns the game (I do) or not. What gets patched and what doesn't is equally important to both groups.

Ray K · March 9, 2003, 16:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Seldon

Where did you see this? The only patch they mentioned was the AI patch and they said they're testing to make sure it fixes the problems in that module and that it's a worthwhile download. They never said once they're going to abandon it. You don't even own the game, do you, so why do you care even if what you said was true?

I was speaking about the tone of the article. The tone. They sounded pretty beaten to me.

I care because, like many others, I wanted MOO3 to be a good game and had my hopes up like everyone else and I cannot turn that interest off like a light switch. If ownership is a requirement for having an opinion on this series, then perhaps Apolyton should require a CD-Key before posting.

Harry Seldon · March 9, 2003, 16:36

Quote:

Originally posted by duodecimal

Well, I own it, and a few people are waiting to hear from me, one in one group saying she would "appreciate knowing if the patches help, or if they're just going to dance around the issue and not fix the really annoying stuff".

I'm not making any predictions on what gets patched. It doesn't matter whether someone owns the game (I do) or not. What gets patched and what doesn't is equally important to both groups.

I understand. I was mostly speaking to Ray K. See below.

Harry Seldon · March 9, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray K

I was speaking about the tone of the article. The tone. They sounded pretty beaten to me.

I care because, like many others, I wanted MOO3 to be a good game and had my hopes up like everyone else and I cannot turn that interest off like a light switch. If ownership is a requirement for having an opinion on this series, then perhaps Apolyton should require a CD-Key before posting.

The reason I say this is because I've seen you posting a plethora of negative things about the game, but you don't seem to have even given it a spin yet. The tone of your post, the tone of most of your posts for that matter, make it sound like you have an intimate knowledge of the game. I point this out because for all the reasons I had to not buy the game, I did, and I'm happy with it. I won't say there aren't things to be fixed, but maybe you should go to EB and at least try the game instead of repeating what you've seen in others' posts. EB will let you take it back for up to a week no questions asked and then you could tell us what you truly dislike about the game instead of what you think you'll hate.

Ray K · March 9, 2003, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Seldon The reason I say this is because I've seen you posting a plethora of negative things about the game, but you don't seem to have even given it a spin yet. The tone of your post, the tone of most of your posts for that matter, make it sound like you have an intimate knowledge of the game. I point this out because for all the reasons I had to not buy the game, I did, and I'm happy with it. I won't say there aren't things to be fixed, but maybe you should go to EB and at least try the game instead of repeating what you've seen in others' posts. EB will let you take it back for up to a week no questions asked and then you could tell us what you truly dislike about the game instead of what you think you'll hate.

Read my original post. I was speaking about the attitude of the programmers. I was not speaking about the game.

In fact, most of my ire is directed at QS, not MOO3.

The Templar · March 9, 2003, 17:37

Hey Seldon, I own the game, I've played the game, I've mastered the game, guess what?

It sucks!

I'm kidding (the p***ing matches around here are getting old though . . .)

Hey RayK, where's that java MOO you were doing? Can't wait to see your AI. Guess you'll show ol' Rantz a thing or two about writing code (now tuck your tail between your legs and hide under the bed like a good little kitten).

As for QS, that was refreshingly honest. Too bad it was several days too late. Two more years ?!?!? Guys, its a motherf***ing game, not the cure for cancer. If you can't get a video game right in the three years you had, you won't get it right ever. Next time, plan first then write code. Next time? What publisher in their right mind would hire your incompetent asses to write a screen saver.

Fix the diplomacy to be more rational (yeah, I know their aliens and all but jesus, its a game not a xenobiology simulator) and make the AI agressive. Then you'll have an ok game. If you want a great game, go play MOO1 several times - that was the "Mona Lisa", the "Kind of Blue" of computer strategy games. MOO3 is a half-assed Pollock by comparison. A fun game don't get me wrong, but not one I'll likely be playing years from now.

Killazer · March 9, 2003, 18:18

No revelation to me I knew the game sucked quite a while ago. Well it doesnt totally suck, but it should have been about 10x better. 110 UI screens originally???!!!! ROFL hahahahah that would have been INSANE. We would have had to spend a month just to learn the game. Nobody wants to do that -it is a GAME after all. QS did a very piss poor job of designing and implementing Moo3 and let down a very large amount of MOO enthusiasts.

Vince278 · March 10, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Asmodean
So guys. They're not admitting that they made a poor game (because they didn't). They admitting that the game could be better, and that they're comitted to making it better. So Comrade Tribune, slitherin et al. Get down from your hign horses. You do not look too good on them.

Perhaps not a poor game but they did say it was broken which is worse. Committed to making it better? Chantz was saying that how long ago? If that horse was any higher it would be at Woodstock.

ChaotikVisions · March 10, 2003, 01:07

Where did they say it was broken?

TheMaestro · March 10, 2003, 01:15

The game could be better, no doubts there...but it is still a good game. A lot to fix, but a lot went right also.

Vince278 · March 10, 2003, 01:32

Quote:

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
Where did they say it was broken?

From the Gamespy interview:

"As for the AI, testers were having a problem beating the game on the difficult game settings. They just couldn't win, so the AI was dumbed down about two weeks before shipping by adjusting certain modifiers that determined how aggressive the AI would be. However, this in turn affected other things because the game is so intricately intertwined. "We didn't have a chance to do due diligence to see if other things were broken because we didn't have time to test it fully," Hoseley said.

There is an AI patch in the works, but no release date has been announced. "AI patches have to be tested efficiently or your solution breaks other things ,"
(Italics are mine for illustration)

ChaotikVisions · March 10, 2003, 01:44

Thats your smoking gun? Thats just about the AI getting toned down affected some other things, not the whole game being broken. And they're patching the AI to fix that part, with mods being out already to make it play decent in the meanwhile.

Vince278 · March 10, 2003, 02:59

What is being implied is clear enough. They're not worried about breaking something, they're worried about breaking other things.

I think someone else in the forums said it best: The engine is broken but don't worry, the rest of the car works fine.

ChaotikVisions · March 10, 2003, 03:04

Uh no, have you ever worked with code before? Changing one thing can end up breaking something else. Its hard to know how everything will respond. So its just about making sure changing one part won't adversely affect other parts, just like you'd find in any other game...

Vince278 · March 10, 2003, 03:10

We two must be the only people up at this time of night.

I see what you're trying to say...

vmxa1 · March 10, 2003, 04:24

Nice try, but I am up as well and playing Moo3.