Surprisingly frank interview with Rantz/Cory

[Vince278]

I work at night and MOO during the day.

(Can I use MOO as a verb?)

[Jamski]

Beats using it as a drinks coaster

-Jam

[Vince278]

That's what I do with all those annoying AOL disks I get in the mail (one is even hanging over the baby's crib). MOO3 will never suffer that fate.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Vince278
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.

Sure, they're worried about breaking other things. In a piece of software as complex as MOO3, changing one pice of the code may well have adverse effects on other parts of the program. This doesn't mean that the game is flawed, though. It merely means that with millions of lines of code, even small changes can have unpredictable results.

Asmodean

[Ghostbear]

I spent $50 for MOO3, how much griping does that entitle me too? Probably an infinite amount until I get another game to take the pain away.

The article doesn't jibe with the arrogance they showed during those months as the timeline slipped and slipped.

The point that annoys me the most is them whining that no one took charge of the design.

I think the only real hope for MOO 3 is if it could become another SE IV community. However, SE IV does have repeated patches, not just modding.

And, like with SE IV Gold, there has to be more chances for the developers to make some $$$$.

I would pay for MOO 3 Gold, if it were a major upgrade.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Asmodean


Sure, they're worried about breaking other things. In a piece of software as complex as MOO3, changing one pice of the code may well have adverse effects on other parts of the program. This doesn't mean that the game is flawed, though. It merely means that with millions of lines of code, even small changes can have unpredictable results.

Asmodean

= poor design.

They held the game back several months for QC, changed the AI at the last minute and then released that change without testing?

I have no problem with people who like MOO3 and defend it (different strokes...), but defending QS for releasing a game that they admit is flawed is just silly.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Sure, they're worried about breaking other things. In a piece of software as complex as MOO3, changing one pice of the code may well have adverse effects on other parts of the program. This doesn't mean that the game is flawed, though. It merely means that with millions of lines of code, even small changes can have unpredictable results.
Asmodean

That wouldn't be so bad if they showed some skill at Object Oriented Designing. I hope they at least flow-charted their processes.

Originally posted by Ghostbear
The article doesn't jibe with the arrogance they showed during those months as the timeline slipped and slipped.

The point that annoys me the most is them whining that no one took charge of the design.

Amen!

Originally posted by Ray K

= poor design.

They held the game back several months for QC, changed the AI at the last minute and then released that change without testing?

I have no problem with people who like MOO3 and defend it (different strokes...), but defending QS for releasing a game that they admit is flawed is just silly.

Amen again!

[vee4473]

If small changes to code can have unpredictable results, why would any programmer make a change so close to release, knowing that he couldn't possibly know what adverse affects would be the reult?

Did they make the change and cross their fingers?

[Grumbold]

Personally I'd like the opportunity to play the version that people couldn't beat.

[Vince278]

I'd like to play the version that had lots more stars and screens.